Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE AND LEICESTER PLC (GROUP REORGANISATION) BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time on Thursday 30 July.

Oral Answers to Questions — TREASURY

The Chancellor of the Exchequer was asked—

Mortgages (Euros)

Mr. Gordon Prentice: What estimate he has made of the number of house buyers likely to switch their mortgages from lenders trading in sterling to those trading in the euro. [50487]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The United Kingdom mortgage market is already one of the most competitive in Europe. The narrow differential between longer-term interest rates in Britain and in Europe and the need to manage currency exposure are likely to make these specialist products.

Mr. Prentice: I am not entirely sure about that. It seems that, if there is a big gap between interest rates in the sterling zone and those in the euro zone, it would make sense for people entering the mortgage market to go where mortgages are cheap, or cheaper. I have had a letter from one of the big high street banks telling me that it will be offering euro mortgages next year. What is to stop French, German or Dutch banks—banks throughout the European Union—putting advertisements in the national press here to induce people to switch from sterling mortgages to euro mortgages, which may be more beneficial?

Mr. Darling: The answer is that, subject to the regulatory requirements that are enforced in this country, there is nothing to stop any French or German bank or other financial institution from offering mortgages in this country. Indeed, British lenders are already offering mortgages in other member states. That is what the single market is all about.

Mr. John Bercow: Given that 89 per cent. of mortgage finance in the United Kingdom is held

at variable rates and given the simple established fact that mortgages account for almost 11 per cent. of average earnings in the UK—by contrast, they account for only 3.5 per cent. of average earnings in the rest of the European Union—will the right hon. Gentleman, in his public information campaign about the single currency, make it abundantly clear to the British people that they will be much more damaged by an increase in interest and mortgage rates under the single currency than they would be if they lived in France, Germany or elsewhere in the EU?

Mr. Darling: I should have thought that the hon. Gentleman might have thought long and hard before he asked that supplementary question, because the last time that mortgage rates in this country increased dramatically to double figures was in the late 1980s, following mismanagement by the previous Government. I should have thought also that he would have supported this Government's policy, which is geared to reducing inflation, so that we can bring down interest rates and get long-term stability. The final point that he might want to bear in mind is that interest rates in continental Europe have always been lower than those in this country because it has had the long-term economic stability that this country has not had, primarily because of the stop-go, boom-bust, high-interest-rate policies that were operated by the previous Government.

NHS Funding

Mr. Tony McNulty: What representations he has received on proposals in the comprehensive spending review in terms of the funding of the NHS. [50488]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Within a falling debt-to-gross-domestic-product ratio and a current surplus over the next three years, we have made £21 billion available for the NHS, money for modernisation to improve services to patients. To deliver that agenda, responsibility in pay will continue to be necessary but, as a result of our decisions, 30 new hospitals are planned, 1,000 general practitioner surgeries will be renovated, and 7,000 more doctors and 15,000 more nurses will employed in the health service over the next three years. Our proposals have brought a favourable response in the representations that we have received.

Mr. McNulty: I welcome that response and the real increase of 3.7 per cent. over the next three years in NHS funding, compared with 2.5 per cent. under the previous Government. Will the Chancellor confirm that modernisation goes hand in hand with that additional funding? Does he believe that the public will welcome that approach, rather than the approach that involves cutting NHS spending, which is the policy of the Conservative party?

Mr. Brown: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. This is money in return for modernisation. Resources will be available for reform in the NHS. As a result, £8 billion will be invested in new hospitals, clinics and GP premises. It has been possible to raise real-terms health service spending by 5.7 per cent. next year, 4.5 per cent. the year after and 3.9 per cent. the year after that. That is an


average growth of 4.7 per cent. in real terms, far more than was ever achieved by the previous Government. Because of their policies now to cut public spending, the Conservatives will have to tell us which hospitals and which schools they would close.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Increases in NHS spending have frequently required calls on the reserve. Does the Chancellor think that it was prudent to announce a reserve that is smaller than any reserve announced by the six predecessors in his post?

Mr. Brown: The whole point of three-year plans is that Departments now make their decisions within the resources allocated to them. I would have thought that, as a result of seeing the stop-go in public spending under the previous Government, the hon. Gentleman would prefer three-year plans that will allow us to break from the short-termism of the annual cycle and to plan the proper delivery of services. The Conservative party has some questions to answer about its future policies.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: What proportion of the increased expenditure on the NHS capital programmes comes from the private finance initiative? What will be the real cost to the NHS in the longer term of repaying private finance both in terms of the funding of each district health authority and each hospital and in terms of democratic control of the NHS which, in my view, might be handed over in part to the private sector through the PFI?

Mr. Brown: The difference between the private finance initiative under this Government and what happened under the previous Government is that, under the previous Government, public investment was replaced by private investment and, under our Government, public investment is being enhanced by private investment. That has made possible the 30 new hospitals that are being planned—work is already under way on eight. Private finance initiative schemes will produce the new hospitals and they will be very much part of the £8 billion invested in new hospitals and clinics. As a result of the changes that we have made, from a failed PFI unit in the Treasury when we took office to a new and reinvigorated public-private partnership unit in the Treasury now, we are determined to achieve the value for money that I should have thought was wanted by both sides of the House.

Mr. Edward Davey: Will the Chancellor explain why he seems so determined to leave the NHS totally unprotected and uninsured against the possibility of high inflation? Does he not realise that high inflation could have a damaging effect on the NHS? Why can he not simply say that he will use the higher tax revenues that will come with higher inflation to give a cast-iron guarantee to the House that he will maintain the spending on the NHS announced in his review in real terms?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman speaks as if we are not increasing NHS expenditure in real terms. It is being increased by 4.7 per cent. a year in real terms. The whole purpose of a three-year settlement is that, within the health budget, with the total increase of £21 billion, all the

decisions about the use of resources can be made. It ill becomes the Liberal Democrats, who were suggesting that we should spend an extra half a billion a year on health—that is £1.5 billion over the next three years—when we have now allocated £21 billion, to start complaining about a Labour Government who have delivered when they can never deliver. It is a party that wants publicity without responsibility. That is all that it is.

Mr. Jim Murphy: I listened to my right hon. Friend talking about the party that seeks publicity without responsibility. Has my right hon. Friend listened to the pledges and commitments of the Scottish National party in previous weeks and months? I notice that not one of them is here—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must ask a question about Government policy and not about other parties in the House.

Mr. Murphy: Has my right hon. Friend had time since the announcement of the spending review to investigate how his announcement compares with the pledges of other parties? Is he aware that the investment in Scotland's health service that is threatened by the SNP and its policies would mean 3,000 fewer nurses, 300 fewer doctors, 400 fewer intensive care beds and 4,000 fewer beds in our hospitals? Is it not true that, under the SNP, we would have cuts, cuts, and cuts again?

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat and it will be some time before I call him again.

Mr. Michael Fallon: How can the Chancellor be so sure that his spending plans are securely based when independent survey after survey—Ernst and Young on Monday, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research this morning—all conclude that he is seriously over-estimating economic growth and tax receipts? Are all those reports wrong, or is it the type of self-opinionated arrogance that has driven prudence away?

Mr. Brown: Labour Members will not take lectures on arrogance from the hon. Gentleman. I urge him to read the NIESR report that he mentioned. It states:
Despite our different assessment of future receipts, our forecast shows the Government's fiscal plans being broadly met.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take note of that, and of what major economists and others have said about our plans.
Richard Jeffrey, chief economist at Charterhouse, said:
This is an incredibly conservative package that…wasn't imaginable from an old Labour
Chancellor.
Andrew Dilnot, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said:
The rate of growth of spending is going to be slower than under the last Government".
[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Yes—and Conservative Members accuse us of imprudence.
Adair Turner said:
A reasonable combination of tight control of current spending and a welcome increase in capital expenditure.


Conservative Members had better now make up their minds. Last Tuesday, when I made my announcement, they said that they wanted to cut spending. Every day after that, with each of our announcements, they have been anxious to increase spending. They must make up their mind whether they will be a serious party of opposition, or simply in opposition for years to come.

EU Budget Lines

Barbara Follett: What recent discussions he has had regarding the European Court's decision that certain EU budget lines had no legal basis. [50489]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): I had very fruitful discussions with other European Budget Ministers, and with representatives of the European Commission and European Parliament, at the Budget Council on 17 July. I am pleased to say that, in line with the assurances given by the Prime Minister on 18 June to Members of the European Parliament, we have reached an agreement that will enable funding to be released while ensuring that the European Court of Justice's ruling is respected.

Barbara Follett: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply, and for the work that she has been doing to resolve that very difficult situation. When does she estimate that the funding will be released?

Mrs. Liddell: The block that was put on budget lines because of the European Court of Justice's decision has now been lifted, and we anticipate that those budget lines will now be fully operational.

Mr. Ian Taylor: Much as the European Court and the European Commission play a beneficial role in extending the single market in the European Union, will the Minister have a close look at the decision on the Air France subsidy, whereby the Commission appears to have overturned the European Court's judgment? That could affect £2 billion of subsidy to Air France. The Commission's decision seems an outrageous one, and may well have budgetary implications for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider.

Mrs. Liddell: The Council of Ministers keeps a very close watch on all the Commission's activities in budgetary matters. We are very committed to tight budget discipline, and that commitment is shared by a number of our European partners. I very much take on board the hon. Gentleman's point.

Coral Reef Products

Mr. Tam Dalyell: If he will make a statement on Customs and Excise policy in relation to the illegal importation of coral reef products. [50490]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): As in the case of all items protected by the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species, customs

policy is to confiscate coral imported illegally. Customs usually would prosecute if there were evidence of the importer deliberately breaking the law by such activity.

Mr. Dalyell: Acknowledging the excellent efforts of many customs officers, often in trying circumstances, and in the light of the Adjournment debate on 1 July, may I ask what efforts the Government are making to increase awareness of the impact of the coral trade on coral ecosystems, not only in the United Kingdom but in holiday destinations, where tourists often buy illegally got coral?

Mr. Robinson: My hon. Friend is quite correct to say that there is an amount of unintentional importation occurring, and we are taking action—in a public advertising campaign at airports and other points of embarkation and debarkation—to clarify the matter. I should like to take this opportunity to congratulate him on his Adjournment debate and on drawing attention the matter. I have also read with great interest the recent "Reefs at Risk" report, which he will have seen. Moreover, we are in close contact with the World Wide Fund for Nature and other organisations on the matter.

Public Spending

Mr. John Smith: If he will make a statement on the priorities for public spending set out in the comprehensive spending review. [50491]

Mr. Jim Dobbin: If he will make a statement on his priorities for public spending for 1999–2000. [50505]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): The statement on 14 July 1998, Official Report, columns 187–94 and the White Paper on spending set out prudent spending plans which will achieve a falling debt-to-GDP ratio and a current surplus over the next three years and will invest in reform of the public services and reallocate 50 per cent. of new money to two priority areas—the national health service and education. We shall invest £19 billion in education. We shall renovate or build 2,000 classrooms and employ 6,000 extra teachers to cut class sizes, and we shall have half a million more students in higher and further education.

Mr. Smith: We on the Government Benches welcome the emphasis in my right hon. Friend's comprehensive spending review on capital spending, especially on the doubling of capital investment in our schools, which will be music to the ears of the mums and dads in the Vale of Glamorgan whose children's education had suffered for so long under the Tories. Is not the only way to get the high-quality public services that the public clearly want through increased investment, something that the Conservative party totally opposes?

Mr. Brown: Capital expenditure on schools will double in this Parliament, to the benefit of thousands of school pupils. Also, 6,000 schools are already benefiting from the new deal for schools, which was paid for by the windfall levy on the privatised utilities—something that


was also opposed by the Conservatives. We have made our investment in education; it is now time to hear the policies of the other parties.

Mr. Dobbin: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the serious under-investment by the previous Government prevented the modernisation and improvement of the British infrastructure? Will he outline what levels of investment will be going into the public sector when we set up the investing in Britain fund?

Mr. Brown: All hon. Members will welcome the improvements that will be made in their constituencies as a result of the investing in Britain fund. It will double capital investment over the next three years from 0.8 to 1.5 per cent. of GDP. At the moment, 1 million school pupils are being taught in classrooms built before the first world war; two thirds of our hospital blocks are hand-me-downs from the days of the voluntary and charity hospitals; and everyone knows that our roads and the transport infrastructure have been under-maintained. As a result of the investing in Britain fund, I should like to see signs in every constituency that the Government have invested in this country's future.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Does the Chancellor recall that, under each of the previous five Labour Governments that this country has had to endure, unemployment has always been significantly higher when they left office than when they assumed it? Has he noted the report by Ernst and Young—the largest accountancy firm in the world—which states that his comprehensive spending review is going to send unemployment soaring towards 2 million?

Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman should read the report. The first thing of which I remind him is that unemployment increased by 50 per cent. under the previous Government. Secondly, the Labour Government have created 400,000 jobs in their first year. Thirdly, the new deal for young people, which the hon. Gentleman's party also opposed, has already involved 60,000 young people. We are determined to end the problems of youth and long-term unemployment. It is about time that we heard a Conservative party policy that would cut unemployment instead of increasing it.

Sir Michael Spicer: Does the Chancellor accept that next year will be the last in which Conservative expenditure totals apply, and that, after that, expenditure as a proportion of GDP will be out of control, in the sense that he does not have the foggiest idea what the GDP will be beyond that, given that he himself has produced two totally different central forecasts for GDP in the past four months?

Mr. Brown: First, the forecasts that we have put before the House of Commons have been absolutely consistent since the November statement and the Budget, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the point that he made on that. Secondly, in respect of prudence in public spending, our golden rule means that, over the cycle, revenues will pay for current spending. In other words, the Budget will be in balance. Under the Conservative Government and in the last economic cycle, there was a deficit of 1.5 per cent. of GDP, averaging £12 billion every year on current spending. So I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider who was prudent and who was imprudent.
As for our spending plans, the Conservative party had better wake up to the fact that we are getting the debt-GDP ratio, which we inherited at 45 per cent., down to 40 per cent. and below. Therefore, we are running a prudent policy—[Interruption.] I am not going to take lectures from the party that doubled the national debt and left us with public borrowing at £23 billion, which we had to reduce to £8 billion, and debt interest payments that were more than the budget for education. That is the record of the Conservative Government.

Mr. Derek Foster: Is my right hon. Friend aware that his comprehensive spending review statement was the defining moment for the Government? It reminded the British people why they voted Labour last year. My right hon. Friend has identified the productivity gap as crucial to the success of his economic and financial policy. In view of the overvalued pound and earnings rising at 5.4 per cent., will he now ensure that the Government devote sufficient resources to deal with the problem?

Mr. Brown: I understand the concerns of exporters about the pound, but, more than anything else, they are concerned about the possibility that we shall return to the policies of the previous Government. We are engaged in a process of moving the economy from the stop-go, low productivity and instability of the past 20 years under the Conservatives to an economy that is capable of sustained and steady growth with high investment and productivity. I believe that most businesses and industrialists do not want a return to the boom-bust years of the Conservatives, and we shall not be diverted from a policy for long-term growth in the economy.

Mr. Francis Maude: Why did the Chancellor abandon the commitment made in his March Budget statement to balance the Budget in cash terms by 2000?

Mr. Brown: No commitment was made. We said that we would publish three scenarios about the future growth of public expenditure, all of which would meet the golden rule. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at what I have said in past years, he will see that I said two things: it is prudent in economic policy first to meet the golden rule and secondly to have a sustainable debt-GDP ratio. When we published the projections in March, they included, under the old public sector borrowing requirement, zero in one year. In the projections that we published in June, under the net borrowing requirement, we reached zero in one year.
However, the whole purpose of our policy is not to pursue the balanced budget policy that the right hon. Gentleman's party pursued but always failed to meet, but to pursue two rules in public expenditure: the golden rule and the sustainable investment rule with debt to GDP being at a prudent ratio. I must now ask the right hon. Gentleman, who said a week ago that he would cut spending, now that every other Opposition spokesman is saying that they would raise spending, whether his policy is now to cut spending, raise spending or leave it the same. Will he tell us the answer?

Mr. Maude: The Chancellor's defence to the charge that he has abandoned his commitment is that he has


changed the definition. It is almost the same explanation that the Paymaster General gave for his failure to disclose his interests—that he signed false accounts instead. Will the Chancellor now correct the Prime Minister's gravely misleading statement yesterday and accept that his own forecasts are now much more optimistic than any others?
My hon. Friends have quoted the Item Club report and the report by NIESR. The Item Club says:
the fiscal arithmetic is dangerously prone to recessionary shocks which hit welfare spending and tax revenues.
The NIESR report says:
The sharp rise in Government spending will keep interest rates higher than would otherwise have been the case and delays their eventual reduction.
What does manufacturing industry have to say about that? Has not the Chancellor shown in a few short weeks what a sham his reputation for prudence and caution was? Has he not blown it all in a calculated bid to wrest control of the Labour party from his neighbour, trying to spend his way into the Labour party succession?

Mr. Brown: The shadow Chancellor has no reputation to worry about. The average of Treasury and independent growth forecasts is 2.2 per cent. We have said that growth will be within a range of 2 to 2.5 per cent. Far from being out of line with independent and City forecasts, we are in line with them.
The shadow Chancellor quoted from the NIESR review. Let me tell him what it says instead of him pretending what it does not say. On page 6 it says:
the inflation outlook remains benign
On the same page, it says:
We expect…growth at 2 per cent. this year and 1½ per cent. next year".
Further on, it says:
our forecast shows the government's fiscal plans being broadly met.
I expect the Conservatives to read that before trying to give selective quotations from City and independent forecasters.
Our forecasts for the economy last July, last November and in the Budget are broadly being met. It is time that the Conservatives faced the challenge of moving the economy from stop-go, which we had under them, to stable and sustained growth. That is why we made the Bank of England independent. Would the right hon. Gentleman keep the Bank of England independent?

Pay Rises

Mrs. Anne Campbell: What assessment he has made of the effects of the current level of pay rises among senior business executives. [50492]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Pay in all sectors and at all levels must be related to what is affordable in the medium term. Senior business executives are no exception. It would be the worst of short-termism for senior executives or anyone else to pay themselves unsustainable pay increases today at the cost of higher interest rates, fewer jobs and slower growth tomorrow.

Mrs. Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that large pay increases that are not related to productivity can only make firms less competitive and lead to inflationary pressures in the economy?

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Boardroom members who are telling others to pull

in their belts and accept reasonable and affordable pay increases must show a lead. Our productivity record is not very good compared with other countries. Management has a role to play. I repeat that for anyone—senior executive or not—to pay themselves unsustainable pay increases today would bring the worst possible results, with fewer jobs and slower growth. Everybody—boardrooms in particular—should take the lead on that.

Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Chief Secretary agree that the issue is not the amount that chief executives are paid, but their calibre and the performance of their companies, particularly their investment in infrastructure and the fact that consumers' bills since privatisation have been held at incredibly low levels? We all remember the times when nine out of 10 public telephones did not work and every high street in the country was being dug up by a different utility. The utilities are very different today. We need world-class companies such as British Telecom and other privatised utility companies.

Mr. Darling: I am not sure where the hon. Gentleman has been for the past few years. Many hon. Members can name many high streets that are still being dug up by the utilities. I am not sure when he last received a water bill, but many people's water bills have increased substantially.
The important point is that all boardrooms, particularly those of the monopoly utilities, should show an example—some restraint. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that calibre of boardroom members matters. Those of calibre should reflect on the fact that what they do is seen not only by those who work for them but by everyone else. I would have thought that it would be an example of calibre to show some degree of restraint in order to ensure that pay increases are affordable and that some of this year's increases, which, frankly, are very difficult to justify, are not repeated.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that expecting bosses, especially of the public utilities, to adopt the moral tone that the Government might encourage, and asking them to occupy high moral ground on their own pay, is not likely to work? They have never been prepared to respond in the past. As the Government have something to do with regulators and can propose public utility price levels, should they not take the opportunity to work in that direction? Should not the people whom the Government appoint to quangos—I do not like quangos, but the Government do, and they appoint thousands of people to them every year—impose conditions on bosses' pay? If we go down that road—it is public intervention for sure—we might get a better result than by merely preaching.

Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes an important point, particularly in respect of directors of monopoly utilities, who make their profits, to a large extent, because of their monopoly. He will know that the Government are considering action to ensure some degree of restraint in those boardrooms. I repeat that it is up to everyone, particularly senior executives, to show some responsibility and to set an overall example.

Miss Anne McIntosh: Will the Chief Secretary comment on the future of pay review bodies


apropos public sector pay increases? Does he share my view that it is more appropriate for consultants, doctors and nurses to receive a larger increase than public sector executives?

Mr. Darling: The hon. Lady will know that pay review bodies, some of which were set up more than 20 years ago, will remain. We have enhanced their responsibilities by asking them to have regard not only to recruitment, retention and motivation but, crucially, to affordability in order to ensure that whatever they award is consistent with Departments' obligations to achieve the targets set out in last week's review.
Pay review bodies must also have regard to the Government's inflation target. Although such bodies are of course independent and will come to their independent views, most people realise that, if we start to pay ourselves unjustifiable and unaffordable awards, we shall embark on the spiral that we saw far too often in the past, in which any gains from a pay increase that public service workers and others received were swiftly eaten away by inflation. We shall not return to those days.

Economic and Monetary Union

Mr. Brian White: What progress has been made towards meeting the criteria which the Government have set for joining EMU. [50493]

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Helen Liddell): The Government are committed to a programme that is in the national economic interest and will help to satisfy the five tests outlined by the Chancellor in his statement in October.
The Government are achieving macro-economic stability through our sound fiscal and monetary policies. We are creating the right framework for low inflation through our reform of the Bank of England and our commitment to monitoring the inflation target in the light of the European central bank's practices. We are ensuring that fiscal rules and deficit reduction plans continue to be consistent with the terms of the stability and growth pact, thereby underlining our commitment to avoid excessive deficit. We are promoting greater flexibility in the United Kingdom by our welfare-to-work programme and our investment in long-term skills.

Mr. White: Given that, in 14 months, the Government have done more to prepare British business for either the threat or the opportunity—depending on one's point of view—of the euro than the previous Administration in the long years since Maastricht, will my hon. Friend explain how she intends to provide the House and the British people with regular progress updates, so that any decision on British entry to the euro can be an informed choice rather than the knee-jerk reaction so typified by Conservative Members?

Mrs. Liddell: The Government regularly publish details of the performance of the economy against which the five economic tests can be measured. My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We have only five months until the introduction of the single currency in 11 countries with which businesses in this country trade. It is quite appalling that the previous Government did nothing to ensure that preparations were in place. Indeed, their actions could

have adversely affected the competitiveness of British industry. This Government are doing everything in our power to address that.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: In the light of the job losses announced by Rover today, does the Economic Secretary not recognise that the overvalued pound is causing serious damage to British manufacturing and threatens tens of thousands of jobs, and that that has been brought about partly by the Government's failure in their fiscal policy to tackle consumers rather than businesses, so forcing up interest rates and the pound? Does she not recognise that the Government have the power and the duty to address that problem, and also to ensure that business has a clearly identifiable timetable for membership of European monetary union so that it can make plans now, knowing that the British exchange rate will be at a competitive level, which at the moment it is not?

Mrs. Liddell: Again, we have publicity without responsibility. The hon. Gentleman is advocating short-term solutions to problems that have to be dealt with in the longer term. It is ironic that that should come from the Liberal Democrats, who voted against all the tax changes introduced by the Government. The sensible thing to do is to get the economy on to the path of long-term sustainable growth. In that way, we benefit the entire British economy, and allow the British people to make a reasoned judgment on whether to join a single currency.

Dr. Lynne Jones: My hon. Friend will be aware that in the west midlands we are very concerned about the job losses—up to about 10,000—which will arise as a result of Rover's announcement. Will she and her colleagues tell the Monetary Policy Committee that it is important not to exaggerate the inflationary pressures in the economy and that, with the exception of fat cat pay rises, pay settlements, including those at Rover, have been in line with inflation? Higher earnings have largely been the result of factors such as increased overtime working, which, ironically, has come about because employers are unwilling to take on new staff because of the high and uncompetitive rate of the pound. Will the Minister also tell the Monetary Policy Committee that tomorrow's mortgage interest rate rise will lead to demands for higher pay increases? The sooner we can get interest rates down, the better.

Mrs. Liddell: I must tell my hon. Friend that only last month Rover announced 1,000 additional new jobs in connection with the R40 model that it is introducing. One of the key elements for long-term business planning in this country is to get inflation down and stability into the economy. Some 400,000 new jobs have been created over the past year, and to enable us to build a sustainable economy we need the kind of decisions now being taken by the Monetary Policy Committee, which should have been taken by the Conservative Government. Much of the increase in the value of sterling—two thirds of it, in fact—took place in the lifetime of the previous Government. Conservative Members frequently try to forget that.

Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: As the Government have decided in principle to join the single European currency, and it is now just a matter of timing, does the hon. Lady agree with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research report that came out this morning, which says that the recently announced public spending increases will lead to an interest rate regime that is higher for longer than would otherwise have been the case, and that joining the single European currency in the next Parliament would lead us to join at an uncompetitive rate? According to the report, that will mean
a period of very slow growth and price deflation".
Is that what the hon. Lady wants to condemn the British economy to, just so that the Government can regain some influence in the European Union?

Mrs. Liddell: The right hon. Gentleman is obsessed with the European Union. Indeed, it was interesting that in the debate on the single currency the other evening, the shadow Chancellor, in response to a question by my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary about whether he could tell the House under what circumstances a Conservative Government would ever join the single currency, replied:
At the moment I cannot".—[Official Report, 21 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 990.]
First it was going to be 10 years, and now the Conservatives cannot say when they would ever join. That means that, even if it were in Britain's national interests, the Conservative party could never, because of its own divisions, say that Britain would join a single currency.
I commend to the right hon. Gentleman page 6 of the NIESR report that he cited, which states explicitly:
the inflation outlook remains benign",
and that the forecast shows
inflation falling below 2½ per cent. per annum by the end of this year, with a modest revival to the target rate in 1999".

Heavily Indebted Poor Countries

Mr. Dennis Canavan: How many representations he has received since 1 May 1997 about the debt problems of the poorest countries in the world. [50494]

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): Since 1 May 1997, the Treasury has received more than 9,000 letters and postcards about third-world debt. In the past year, eight of the poorest indebted countries have moved into the debt reduction process.

Mr. Canavan: Although some progress was made at the G8 summit in May, is my right hon. Friend aware of the disappointment at the failure of some of our G8 partners to agree on more positive measures for debt relief? As the International Development Committee report on debt relief was published more than 11 weeks ago, can we expect an early positive response to the Committee's excellent recommendations? Will my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will step up their efforts to write off the unpayable debts of the world's poorest countries by 2000?

Mr. Brown: I assure my hon. Friend that a response has been sent to the Select Committee, outlining a number of initiatives in which the Government are engaged. As a result of the heavily indebted poor countries initiative, Uganda became the first country to receive a debt reduction—it will complete the process this month—by $347 million. Another five countries will have their debt reduced by $3 billion as a result of the negotiations and of the decision points that have been reached. Another two countries are about the reach the decision point, and we are close to agreement on six other countries.
My hon. Friend makes an important point. By the millennium, as a result of the Mauritius mandate, on which Government policy is based, we want all countries to become part of the debt reduction process. That will go hand in hand with the commitment of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development to increase overseas aid and the proportion of our national income that is given in overseas aid.

Mr. Nigel Evans: What discussions is the right hon. Gentleman having with other European Union financial leaders about how substantial progress can be made towards ensuring that the whole of the EU helps to reduce the debt burden of the poorest countries?

Mr. Brown: Much as many hon. Members want the European Union to work in an integrated way on all issues of foreign policy, debt relief works through the Paris club and through pressure in the G7 and other organisations. I think that what the hon. Gentleman wants is what we are trying to do—to persuade our G7 partners to become far more fully involved in the debt reduction process and to persuade countries to reconsider their refusal to sell International Monetary Fund gold. Through our new initiative for post-conflict countries such as Rwanda—which have been burdened not only by huge, unsustainable debts but because they are recovering from war—we can do more as members of the international community to extend the debt reduction process.
A year ago, when we came to power, only one country had finished the decision-making process on debt relief. As a result of international efforts, eight countries have finished that process and another six will soon be at the point of reaching a decision. We must also move forward with the post-conflict countries. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not complacent about these matters; we shall try to move other countries that have hitherto done less.

Mr. Vernon Coaker: Will my right hon. Friend redouble his efforts to solve some of the debt problems of the poorest countries? I, like many hon. Members, receive many representations from schoolchildren, who absolutely cannot understand why we cannot do something about the terrible pictures that we see on the television. I welcome the progress that has been made, but will he redouble his efforts, so that, when we go to schools, we can talk about the real progress that we are making?

Mr. Brown: The Government want poverty to be halved in the future. I assure my hon. Friend that our efforts are designed to ensure that international development aid money goes to the reduction of poverty, to health programmes and to education. We want to avoid


what happened in the 1980s, when much borrowed money financed prestige projects, was wasted on military expenditure and, in some cases, led to the corrupt use of resources.
As we move forward, countries such as Mozambique—where 9 per cent. of the national income was being spent on debt relief but only 4 per cent. was being spent on education and health—are now part of the debt reduction process, which enables money to be spent on the education of children and the health of all people. That is the aim of the Government. I hope that, in the run-up to the millennium, our international millennium initiative will be to ensure that every country is part of the debt reduction process.

EU Spending

Sir Sydney Chapman: If he will make a statement on the impact of the proposals set out in his comprehensive spending review on the United Kingdom's net contributions to the European Union.

Mrs. Liddell: The United Kingdom's contributions to the European Community derive from its treaty obligations with the Community. Consequently, the comprehensive spending review has had no direct impact on the United Kingdom's net contributions to the European Community.

Sir Sydney Chapman: I thank the hon. Lady for her reply. If that is so, can she assure the House that when the budget and expenditure review of the EU takes effect from the end of next year, the UK's net contributions to the EU in the first two years of the new millennium will be no higher than they are at present?

Mrs. Liddell: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that discussions are about to start on the new financial prospectus for the European Community. It is important to make the point that, at the moment, there are increased pressures on the European Community budget because of decisions entered into by the Government of which he was a member in 1992 in relation to structural funds, which have meant a significant increase in expenditure on contributions to the EU. The long-term financial prospects must be looked at in light of the proposed enlargement of the EU. It is the determination of the Government to ensure that we can have a tight budgetary package so we get value for money not just for our domestic economy, but right across Europe.

Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend agree that targeted investment-led EU structural funds have made a major impact on the economies of regions such as the north-west, particularly during those years when the Conservative party refused to intervene to do anything about disparities in regional economies? Does she believe that the comprehensive spending review's proposals for new investment in transport infrastructure will help to develop the economies of our regions so that we may strive to become near the average of the EU regions in terms of gross domestic product, rather than below, where we find ourselves as a result of 18 years of neglect?

Mrs. Liddell: My hon. Friend is well aware of the Chancellor's intention in the comprehensive spending review to seek to reach a settlement that ensures that our infrastructure gets the investment that it requires. We are coming up to a period in which we will be examining the future of the structural funds. The aim of the British Government will be to ensure value for money and that the new structural funds settlement and the common agricultural policy secure the best interests of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom and our constituents.

European Investment Bank

Mr. Colin Breed: What steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to ensure that the European investment bank properly assesses applications for investment. [50496]

The Paymaster General (Mr. Geoffrey Robinson): All projects approved by the EIB are approved by its board after appraisal by its staff.

Mr. Breed: Is the Minister aware that the Select Committee on European Legislation was recently advised of a substantial write-off of an advance to a regional airline which subsequently failed, and that the reasons given were
Poor financial and commercial management, an inadequate choice of aircraft—
which seems to bear out the former—
and lack of political support
from the Government of the region? Does he agree that those assessments should have been part of the original appraisal and that, therefore—in terms of getting EIB loans—such matters should be eliminated? Will he institute a review of the way in which EIB loans are assessed so that we can minimise any future bad debts?

Mr. Robinson: I have met Sir Brian Unwin, and I will bring the matter to his attention. I would not like to leave the House with the impression that the EIB is an inactive or incompetent organisation. It has invested £26 billion, £23 billion of which was in the EU, and, last year, £3.8 billion—the highest level ever—was invested in the UK. I will bring the matters to the attention of Sir Brian. I have met him before and will do so again, and I will report what he says back to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: Is my hon. Friend aware that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer were to announce that he was in favour of joining EMU—without setting a date—the consequences would be an increase in inward investment, a reduction in the high level of the pound and a reduction in interest rates? Would that not be one those rarest-of-all economic consequences—a genuinely free economic lunch?

Mr. Robinson: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made clear the five conditions that must be met and has said that, if it is in the national interest, there is no barrier


to our joining EMU. The performance of the European investment bank in the United Kingdom and the European Union is already extremely good and should be welcomed by the whole House.

Tax Harmonisation

Mr. John Cryer: When he last met his counterparts in the European Union to discuss tax harmonisation. [50497]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Government's view is that direct taxation is primarily a matter for national Governments. Decisions on European tax issues are subject to unanimity.

Mr. Cryer: As we know, there have been extensive discussions within the auspices of the Economic and Finance Council on future tax harmonisation. Can my right hon. Friend guarantee that there will be no future discussions on income tax harmonisation within the European Union because, as sure as eggs is eggs, that is what enthusiasts for EMU will press for next?

Mr. Darling: It is not true to say that there have been extensive discussions. ECOFIN has discussed measures to cut down on tax evasion and also the effects of harmful tax competition—a matter that has been pursued by this Government—as some countries are offering tax incentives in particular areas rather than a generalised reduced rate of corporation tax. I listened carefully to what my hon. Friend said in the debate on the European Union the other night and I understand his general position on it—let alone the European currency. I believe that his fears are exaggerated and I do not share the basis on which he opposes the concept of monetary union or the European Union itself.

Mr. John Whittingdale: With the London art market already largely destroyed in the pointless quest for tax harmonisation, does the Chief Secretary accept that the Commission's proposal to impose a 20 per cent. withholding tax on interest income poses a real threat to London's position as an international financial centre and will lead to investors simply switching their money to Zurich or New York? Will he give a categorical assurance that the Government will veto that proposal and reject any compromise that damages the City of London?

Mr. Darling: I was wondering what the hon. Gentleman was doing on the Front Bench, but I am reminded that he is now an Opposition Treasury spokesman and I welcome him to that job. I recently met an individual who is involved in the art world and am aware of the fears. Frankly, we were sticking up for the position of the art market long before the hon. Gentleman showed any interest in the matter. The Government are aware of the problem—and to say that the London art market is under threat is to raise unjustified fears, as it is competitive and well regarded throughout the world.

European Currencies (Exchange Costs)

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: What estimate he has made of the annual costs to the United Kingdom general public of exchange costs related to European currencies. [50498]

The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Alistair Darling): Any estimate of annual exchange costs related to European currencies would be subject to wide margins of error. It would need to take account of the transaction costs incurred by business and individuals each time currencies are exchanged and the associated costs to business of exchange rate uncertainty.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Why should the British holidaymaker in Europe spend billions of pounds annually filling the pockets of European money changers, when at the stroke of a pen—entry into the single European currency—those costs would disappear overnight? Is that not a powerful argument for early entry into the European single currency?

Mr. Darling: My right hon. Friend the Chancellor made the Government's position on the single currency absolutely clear. If we meet the five economic tests, we believe that, in principle, the single currency would be good for this country. In the past six months of our presidency, we have done everything that we can to ensure that it is launched successfully. I understand my hon. Friend's point, but I think he would agree that the important thing is to ensure that this country prepares so that it is in a position to make a genuine and real decision whether to join such a currency at the appropriate time.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Surely the costs of conversion of currencies are as nothing to the costs to our people of having to endure inappropriate levels of interest or quantities of money in circulation, imposed by an alien bank over which they have no democratic control.

Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman illustrates the problems of the Conservative party when he describes the European Union as alien. No doubt he was greatly encouraged the other night when the shadow Chancellor moved his party's position from not joining a single currency for at least 10 years to not being able to envisage ever joining it at all. That is how out of touch Conservative Members are. They must realise that we are part of Europe. More than 50 per cent. of our trade is within Europe, and we believe that, if it is in our economic interest to join a single currency, that should be equated with the national interest.
The hon. Gentleman graphically illustrates the difference between his party and the Government, who will always act in the national economic interest, which is why most people believe that we will best serve our country's interests in Europe.

Business of the House

Sir George Young: May I ask the Leader of the House to announce the business for next week?

The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Ann Taylor): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 27 JuLY—Conclusion of consideration in Committee of the Northern Ireland Bill.
TUESDAY 28 JuLY—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill.
Consideration of a Lords amendment to the Crime and Disorder Bill [Lords].
Consideration of Lords amendments which are expected to be received to the National Minimum Wage Bill
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at 7 pm.
WEDNESDAY 29 JULY—Until 2 pm, there will be debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will include the usual three-hour pre-recess debate.
Opposition Day (19th allotted day). Until about 7 pm, there will be a debate which the Opposition have entitled "The Government's obsession with style over substance", followed by a debate that they have called "The Government's threat to the quality of life in rural areas". Both debates will arise on Opposition motions.
Motion on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Act 1998 (Terrorist Organisations) Order.
THURSDAY 30 JULY—Progress on remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
FRIDAY 31 JULY—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Bill.
The House will then rise for the summer recess. I cannot announce this week the business for the first week back, but we will return on Monday 19 October.

Sir George Young: The House is grateful for the announcement of next week's business, and of the date on which we can return from working in our constituencies. The House is expecting a number of statements before we rise next week. When can we expect the publication of, and a statement on, the findings of the inquiry into the Sandline affair? Will it be, as rumoured, on Monday?
When will we have the long-awaited statement on local government? Will there be a statement on asylum seekers? When can we expect the outcome of the roads review? Can the Leader of the House confirm that there is no question of delaying announcements so that they are made when the House is not sitting, and can she shed any light on the continuing speculation in the newspapers about the legislation on freedom of information?
If there are to be changes not only in the personnel of the Government—we very much hope that the right hon. Lady will not be moved—but in the structure, can we have early discussions, through the usual channels, about the implications for Select Committees and for question time in the House?
Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate, in which many Ministers may wish to take part, including the right hon. Lady herself, so that the House can judge for itself the claim of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs on 15 July in the Edinburgh Evening News:
When it comes to performance as a minister, I'm rated as one of the best in the House.
Can the right hon. Lady devise an appropriate mechanism to allow the House to vote on the respective qualities of Ministers? Might there also be an opportunity for the President of the Board of Trade to apologise for statements made by the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs about his staff, and to outline what disciplinary action she is taking to deal with him?

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has made it clear that she has no intention of responding to press reports, and that she has confidence in her Ministers and her civil servants. I have nothing to add to that.
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for reiterating what I have said many times about the recess. It is not a time just for holidays, but for hon. Members to do useful and well organised work in our constituencies. It is a working period, which sometimes includes Committees of the House.
The right hon. Gentleman was worried about whether there would be any delay in our making several statements. I hope that there will be statements in one form or another before the House rises on all the matters he raised, but I cannot guarantee that. We pencil in dates for statements, but sometimes they must be adjusted.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the Legg report. The inquiry is independent, as I have pointed out before. I have not yet had confirmation of precise arrangements for the report's publication, but I expect it to happen next week, and expect that there will be a statement in the House.
We are still considering the precise timing and arrangements of the local government White Paper. On the roads review, I have said before that I think it extremely important that any announcement allows all hon. Members to be informed on what is happening in their areas. There are precedents for and against statements on such matters, and we shall have to make a judgment about the balance of other business and statements. The right hon. Gentleman also asked about asylum, and I hope that there will be a statement, perhaps on Monday.

Mr. Derek Foster: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 1589 about freedom of information, which has been signed by 76 hon. Members from both sides of the House, including several leading Select Committee chairpersons?
[That this House welcomes the Prime Minister's statement in 1996 that a Freedom of Information Act 'is not some isolated constitutional reform' but 'a change that is absolutely fundamental to how we see politics developing in this country over the next few years'; congratulates the Government on its Freedom of Information White Paper; expresses concern at the prospect of any delay in bringing the measure forward; and calls on the Government to publish its draft Freedom


of Information Bill before the end of the current session and to ensure that the actual Bill is introduced in the coming session.]
Can she give us a statement next week on the progress of the draft Bill on freedom of information? Would it be possible for that statement to deal with Sir Richard Scott's comments after the arms-to-Iraq affair about a culture of secrecy in Whitehall that was endemic to how we operated? He was saying that the affair was not just a matter of a few Tory Ministers behaving badly, but part of the way in which we work. Can we be told when the draft Bill will be published? Can we be assured that it will be in the Queen's Speech?

Mrs. Taylor: My right hon. Friend is too experienced to expect me to anticipate the Queen's Speech. The Government are fully committed to a radical freedom of information Bill. I apologise to the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) for ignoring that part of his question; perhaps I had anticipated that it would come up again. I can confirm that, as my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster has said, we intend to publish a draft Bill in the autumn.

Mr. Andrew Stunell: Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement on the European Union's current anti-dumping negotiations? I draw her attention to early-day motion 1558 and the large number of jobs at stake in many constituencies.
[That this House supports the British Government in opposing measures taken by the European Commission to impose duties on cotton imports from China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey; recognises the adverse effect this will have on United Kingdom jobs with 7,000 jobs in the United Kingdom textile finishing sector at risk; and calls on the Government to continue its stance in objecting to these measures along with the eight other member states who oppose the duties in order to ensure that these proposals are scrapped.]
May I ask the right hon. Lady to find time for a statement on the future of mutual building societies, following the very narrow victory today by the Nationwide board in the ballot?
Has she had an opportunity to study the letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) to the Secretary of State for Social Security? It draws attention to the continuing difficulties in getting statements and documents from the Government, including this week, which, following the brave words of the Leader of the House in a debate earlier this week, is perhaps somewhat unfortunate?
Finally, early-day motion 1569, supported by more than 80 Members, contains a request that urgent consideration be given to solving the long-standing problem of dealing with private Members' business. Can the right hon. Lady assure the House that action will be taken on that front as well?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman knows that the Government are extremely concerned about the anti-dumping issue, as are many of us who have textiles in our constituencies. I know that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade has been active in trying to get a satisfactory resolution of that matter.
Regarding mutual building societies, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that, in November last year, we increased the turnout threshold in conversion votes from

20 to 50 per cent. That is probably as far as the Government can go in that respect. I assume that the hon. Gentleman wants time to be found for a debate on the matter, but he will understand why "not next week" is a particularly appropriate answer this week.
Regarding his hon. Friend the Member for Newbury, I have no idea what the hon. Gentleman is talking about. Had he given me notice, I would have made inquiries, but I shall do so after Business Questions. I have to admit that I do not see every piece of correspondence from individual Members to all my ministerial colleagues. As for private Members' Bills, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee, and he knows that that is one of the issues to which the Committee intends to turn its attention.

Mr. Tony Benn: Will the Leader of the House give the House an assurance that she will defend the right of the House of Commons over the other place, particularly in respect of the amendment made yesterday in the House of Lords to the Crime and Disorder Bill? Is she aware that it would be utterly intolerable for two free votes of the House of Commons—one on fox hunting and the other on equality of treatment between people of different sexual orientations—to be frustrated by the second Chamber? We have a Government who are prepared to take tough decisions, and here is a really tough decision.
Is my right hon. Friend also aware that a study of the Division list shows that the life peers voted by a majority of 138 to 97 in favour of rejection of the Bill, which includes 20 Labour life peers, four Labour hereditary peers and a former leader of the party, Lord Callaghan? Will she therefore give serious consideration to the apparent policy of the Government that patronage is better than election when it comes to a second Chamber? Will she look at the Parliamentary Reform Bill introduced last week, which would provide for a wholly elected second Chamber of the sort that most civilised countries adopted long ago?

Mrs. Taylor: I am afraid that I cannot hold out very much hope for the Parliamentary Reform Bill introduced last week, but my right hon. Friend makes some serious points about the need for reform of the other place. On his two specific points, I think that the fate of the Bill on fox hunting had more to do with Opposition Members than with Members of the House of Lords; and, after the vote last night, I am considering very seriously with my right hon. Friends, including the Home Secretary, the options now open to us.

Mr. Eric Forth: May we have an early debate on the extraordinary events in the Department of Trade and Industry, not least the astonishing outburst by the Under-Secretary of State to which my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) referred? Does the right hon. Lady not agree that we really must get to the bottom of those events, touching as they do on the relationship between the Secretary of State, one of her junior Ministers and the permanent secretary, the ability of that Department properly to discharge its duties, and its relationship with the House? Surely the President of the Council must agree that this matter is of the utmost


gravity and urgency. Will she arrange for an emergency debate to take place later today so that we can clarify those matters before the events of the coming weekend?

Mrs. Taylor: I am reminded that the Opposition will have a debate on style over substance next Wednesday. The right hon. Gentleman may have style on occasion, but there was certainly no substance in that request.

Mr. David Winnick: Although I deeply regret the decision by the House of Lords yesterday, I ask my right hon. Friend to bear it in mind that there are differences of opinion about the way in which a second Chamber should be organised. Is she aware that many hon. Members, including myself, take the view that the last thing that the House of Commons should want is an elected second Chamber that would substantially undermine the authority of this House, which is already undermined to some extent by organisations such as the European Union? If an elected second Chamber did as the other place did yesterday, what political and moral grounds would we have for opposing it? Now, we can oppose the second Chamber with justification on decisions such as the one made last night, because the other place is totally unelected.

Mrs. Taylor: That is very interesting, but I am afraid that I cannot find time for a debate on that matter next week.

Mr. James Paice: Is the right hon. Lady aware of the crisis in the milk industry? Does she know that a week ago all the major dairies in this country refused to bid for this round of milk sales, with the result that some 40 per cent. of dairy farmers do not have an outlet at any price for their milk in the coming months?
Will the right hon. Lady try to arrange an emergency debate or at least a statement by the Minister of Agriculture about what can be done? A statement could perhaps be made by the President of the Board of Trade, because the Monopolies and Mergers Commission is currently considering the matter. I hope that the right hon. Lady understands that the dairy farmers of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland are very worried about what will happen to their milk.

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot arrange the debate that the hon. Gentleman requests, but I remind him that Agriculture questions will take place on Thursday.

Mr. Lawrence Cunliffe: Will my right hon. Friend consider arranging a debate on the textile industry? Has she read early-day motion 1558, in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle)? The motion pinpoints the potential loss of 7,000 British textile workers' jobs. Those jobs will be lost simply because the European Commission is not firm enough in importing its levies and protecting the general textile industry. Does my right hon. Friend accept that today's legitimate demonstration to safeguard and secure textile workers' jobs is welcomed by the House?

Mrs. Taylor: As I explained earlier, I represent a textile constituency, so I know about those problems.

The Government remain firmly opposed to anti-dumping duties on imports of unbleached cotton originating in China, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Pakistan and Turkey. We are doing everything that we can to prevent confirmation of the current provisional duties. There is concern among all Members with textile interests in their constituency. As I pointed out earlier, my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is fully aware of those concerns, and is working extremely hard to try to achieve a proper resolution of the problem.

Sir Peter Tapsell: Will the Leader of the House give a categorical assurance that during the summer parliamentary recess, no British forces will be committed to action in Kosovo or against Serbia without the House of Commons first being recalled to debate the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: I have said on other occasions that we can never guarantee an oral statement before any decision is made to deploy troops. We would never want to deploy troops without first making a statement, but obviously that cannot be ruled out.

Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: My right hon. Friend said that she expected the freedom of information Bill to be published in the autumn. I wonder whether she might go further and arrange for the publication of the draft Bill before the Labour, Liberal and Conservative party conferences, because I believe that it will certainly influence debates at those conferences.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not sure when all the dates of those conferences are, but it is an interesting suggestion. I shall look at the possibilities, but without giving any guarantee.

Mr. Archy Kirkwood: May I pursue that point? Is the right hon. Lady aware that her answers to the right hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Mr. Foster) are very disappointing indeed? The Bill has slipped several times, and there is now concern that the Government are going cold on the idea.
It is a matter of some importance that we get the draft Bill published in the spillover at the latest, because the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the Select Committee on Public Administration are looking forward to conducting pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. That makes it impossible, realistically, to put it in the Queen's Speech for next year. That is a matter of grave concern because, apart from anything else, before the general election some pretty firm assurances were given to my party—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that these matters would be brought forward and dealt with very early in this Parliament.

Mrs. Taylor: Freedom of information has long been a high priority of the Labour party, and, as I said, Government remain fully committed to a freedom of information Bill. I believe that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), as Chair of the Select Committee on Public Administration, which is considering a draft Bill, appreciates the importance of that procedure, which I want to see advanced in a positive way, and from which I want positive outcomes.
The idea is that we have a draft Bill, which is then considered again. I hope that that means that the passage of the legislation will subsequently be more


straightforward. We cannot guarantee that, but it is worth investing time in that pre-legislative procedure to getthe legislation right. Earlier, I gave the date that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster mentioned to the House—in the autumn. He has made that statement, and that remains the position.

Mr. Chris Mullin: I had understood that the Office of Public Service was saying that the draft freedom of information Bill would be ready by the end of September. Is that true?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot give a precise date, but the end of September is in the autumn.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Will we have a chance next week to debate the report that the Government were going to produce on the progress of each Minister? The Leader of the House knows that, in February, I asked a series of questions about the time that it took for people to respond to letters from Members of Parliament. One junior Minister has said that he is being undermined by his civil servants because he is trying to get 90 per cent. of letters answered within the appallingly long time of three working weeks.
What will actually happen? Does the Leader of the House believe that she is responsible for obtaining for the House a proper service for getting those answers out to Members of Parliament? She knows that Ministers refuse to tell me how long it is now taking them to reply to Members' letters, saying that the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster will publish those figures some time—and not in Hansard.

Mrs. Taylor: The information will be published. We shall publish the target times for the turnaround of replies, and information about the volume of correspondence to different Departments. I hope that we shall be able to do so in the very near future.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Why should there be all this fuss and bother about what the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs is alleged to have said? If what was reported today in the House is correct, what is wrong with the Minister doing his own spin doctoring? He has cut out the middle man.

Mrs. Taylor: I think my hon. Friend confirms that we need not have a debate on that subject next week.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Humorous though some of these exchanges are, I am not prepared to cut into the period of time for debate on the Northern Ireland Bill, which should start at about 4 o'clock, so I am asking for very specific questions and very brief responses, please.

Mr. John Wilkinson: Can the Minister of Transport come to the House and explain how he will safeguard the interests of British aviation against the thoroughly unconstitutional behaviour of Commissioner Kinnock, who, at a stroke of a pen, seems to be able to overturn the jurisdiction of the European Court?

Mrs. Taylor: Again, I do not think that we will be able to debate such issues next week, but the hon. Gentleman,

who is well informed on European matters, will know that the original decision to grant aid predated the arrival of Commissioner Kinnock.

Mrs. Linda Gilroy: Has the Leader of the House had drawn to her attention concerns about thoracic surgical services at Derriford hospital in Plymouth following a Channel 4 news programme last night? Such instances cause deep anxiety to patients and those close to them. As well as leaving no stone unturned, will she offer reassurance that the House will have the chance to debate the findings of any review of the circumstances?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot give that assurance at this stage, but I will try to make sure that my hon. Friend is fully informed of what is happening and of when any outcome is due. As she knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health acted promptly to launch an inquiry and the surgeon concerned has been suspended, pending its outcome. I do not think that there is time to have a further debate at this stage—nor, probably, would it be appropriate.

Dr. Evan Harris: Speaking as one of the six co-sponsors of the Back-Bench amendment on the age of consent, may I ask the right hon. Lady to accept that there is cross-party Back-Bench concern about the actions of another place in overturning that amendment? Therefore, does she not consider it reasonable for the Home Secretary to consult both with other parties through the usual channels and with those co-sponsors on the nature of the Government's response next Tuesday night to the decision in another place?
Furthermore, does the right hon. Lady deprecate press briefings, which are rumoured to have taken place, to the effect that the Government might cave in on the issue? Does she agree that those briefings were not helpful in advance of the debate in another place?

Mrs. Taylor: I certainly confirm that such briefings in advance of that debate would not have been helpful at all. I do not think that any briefings were issued by Labour Members; they certainly did not come from Government sources. I have explained that, along with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and other colleagues, we are considering seriously the options open to us now.

Mr. John Smith: Will my right hon. Friend try to find time in a busy schedule before the House rises to look at the impact of the Data Protection Act 1988 on the ability of right hon. and hon. Members to take up constituency cases? We should be able to do that, and I am sure that the whole House supports me, without any fear or favour or impediment. More of us have time allotted to take up constituency cases than ever before. The last thing we want is barriers. The Act is not being applied equally throughout the country or by different agencies. I should be grateful if she would protect our interests by looking into the matter.

Mrs. Taylor: I am aware that some Members, when they take up a case on behalf of a constituent, have been asked for proof that the constituent is willing for the Member to do so. I do not think that such proof is


necessary, but I know that some people want doubly to protect themselves. It is an issue that we will have look at, because it appears that that practice is increasing.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Whose decision was it to release the Government's consultation paper on fishing safety and recovery of bodies lost at sea by written answer and press conference, as opposed to Commons statement? The hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. George) and I have received the document in the past few minutes. We understand that the press conference took place at 2.30.
Given the commitment by letter last November to release such a consultation document on recovery of bodies lost at sea to four bereaved families in my constituency, what provision was made to inform them of the release of the document and to ensure that they had its contents at least at the same time as the press? Given the huge sensitivity of these matters, is not this an occasion when effective parliamentary scrutiny and questioning might have been better than the Government's obsession with news management?

Mrs. Taylor: This is a matter of sensitivity and, sometimes in such matters, it is right that everyone can absorb the information before they jump to conclusions about what is being proposed. We do not always have statements in the House. As I was saying the other day, we always have to balance the business of the House with statements and the nature of those statements, but I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's concerns are passed on to my right hon. Friends.

Mr. Neil Gerrard: In considering the options in response to last night's vote in another place on the age of consent, will my right hon. Friend take into consideration the fact that many hon. Members feel strongly that we should at least be given the opportunity for a further vote on the matter?

Mrs. Taylor: That issue will return to the House next Tuesday. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, along with other colleagues as well as myself, understands the feeling in the House on that matter.

Mr. Tim Collins: Will the right hon. Lady find time for an early debate on redundancy arrangements, given that so many of her colleagues will be deeply interested in them in the next week or so? Does the right hon. Lady agree with the self-assessment of the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, her hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh. South (Mr. Griffiths), that he is rated one of the best in the House?

Mrs. Taylor: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.

Mr. Alan Simpson: May I refer my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 1583 which relates to a Court of Appeal decision earlier this week about genetically modified crop trials?
[That this House welcomes the Court of Appeal ruling that it was illegal for field trials of genetic maize in Devon to have been allowed without first having met the

statutory legal requirements relating to national seed list trials; regrets that the court failed to go on to rule that GM crop trials be removed; recognises that there is now a moral obligation to do so; values the legal requirement that two replicated trials must be conducted before any national field trials can proceed; and calls for a moratorium on all GM field trials until the wider consequences for human health and environmental well-being have been fully explored.]
Can a statement be made in the House which clarifies exactly what is happening to the crops that have been ruled to be illegal because they have been grown without having first met the statutory legal requirements over national seed list trials? Can we also have a statement on whether there is a case for a moratorium on such GM trials until their status is clear?

Mrs. Taylor: I cannot guarantee my hon. Friend the statement or the debate that he requests. However, I draw his attention to the fact that there are Agriculture questions on Thursday, and it may be possible to raise the subject then.

Mr. John Bercow: Further to the right hon. Lady's glib answers to date, why will she not ask the Minister for Competition and Consumer Affairs, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South, to make a statement to the House, given that that would enable him either to apologise for, or to explain, his publicly reported attack on the permanent secretary of the Department in which he is a Minister? If the right hon. Lady is not prepared to make that request, are we to conclude that the Minister's behaviour is an example of the high standards of public life to which new Labour aspires?

Mrs. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman's behaviour today certainly does not meet the high standards of the House. There is no case to answer, and to ask for time to be used on such matters is just silliness on the hon. Gentleman's part.

Mr. Bob Blizzard: Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate or statement on the taxation of the North sea offshore oil and gas industry? That matter has a bearing on some 350,000 jobs across the country, and affects hundreds of constituencies throughout the land.

Mrs. Taylor: I am aware of my hon. Friend's concern about this issue. I know that he is one of those who has already found the three-hour pre-recess debate extremely useful. I would not be surprised if he were to try to contribute again. I cannot throw any more light on that topic today, but I know that Ministers are aware of the interest in that issue.

Mr. Nigel Evans: Can the Leader of the House arrange for the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, the right hon. Member for Copeland (Dr. Cunningham)—or preferably a new Minister—to make a statement on the quarantine regulations? If the right hon. Lady believes that he cannot come next week, when are we likely to have an announcement on any proposed changes in quarantine regulations? The right hon. Lady may know that many people are deferring their holidays in anticipation of changes taking place.

Mrs. Taylor: I am not aware of people deferring their holidays on that basis, and I cannot provide time for a


debate before the summer recess. I remind the hon. Gentleman, as I have reminded others, that it is Agriculture questions on Thursday.

Sir Robert Smith: Further to the question on the oil tax, does the right hon. Lady not realise that, for an industry to make investment decisions, it has to know what the Government intend to do with the tax regime? The Government keep promising to say something, but then say nothing. Is the right hon. Lady aware that Labour Members and nationalist Members are fighting over the fact that the Government have made a U-turn, and about who is responsible? The industry cannot have confidence in Back-Bench speculation; it needs to know what the Government are planning to do.

Mrs. Taylor: In that case, we should wait for the Government's decision.

Dr. Vincent Cable: Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate before the recess on the working time directive, since its implementation has been promised by 1 October? Although that will be widely welcomed, it is extremely controversial, and raises many technical questions about implementation.

Mrs. Taylor: For reasons that the hon. Gentleman will well understand, next week's programme is extremely crowded, and I do not think that there will be time for extra debates of the type that he is suggesting.

Orders of the Day — Northern Ireland Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Further considered in Committee, pursuant to Order [17 July] [Progress, 22 July].

[MR. MICHAEL LORD in the Chair]

Clause 23

EXCLUSION OF MINISTERS FROM OFFICE

Mr. Andrew MacKay: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 11, leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert—
'() because he is not committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means;
() because he is involved in acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
() because he is directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;
() because he is not committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, by 22nd May 2000;
() because he is not co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883;'.

The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 82, in page 11, line 29, at end insert 'or'.
No. 83, in page 11, line 31, leave out from 'office' to end of line 32.
No. 200, in page 11, line 32, after 'reason', insert
'(including his association with paramilitary organisations carrying out any form of violence or intimidation, such as so—called punishment beatings)'.
No. 16, in page 11, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert
'because it is—
()not committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means;
() involved in acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
() directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;
()not committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, by 22nd May 2000;
()not co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the agreement reached at multi-party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883; or'.
No. 86, in page 11, line 38, leave out from 'means' to end of line 39.
No. 201, in page 11, line 39, after 'reason', insert
'(including its association with paramilitary organisations carrying out any form of violence or intimidation, such as so-called punishment beatings)'.
No. 17, in page 12, leave out lines 17 to 27 and insert—
'(7) The Secretary of State shall serve such a notice if he believes the Minister or party concerned is—

(a) not committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means;
(b) involved in acts of violence or of preparation for violence;
(c) directing, assisting or promoting acts of violence committed or planned by other people;
(d) not committed to the total disarmament of all paramilitary organisations and the achievement of the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms, by 22nd May 2000; or
(e) not co-operating fully with any Commission of the kind referred to in section 7 of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 in the implementation of the agreement reached at multi—party talks on Northern Ireland set out in Command Paper 3883.'.

No. 121, in page 12, line 18, leave out from 'account' to the end of line 27 and insert 'subsection (1)'.
No. 90, in page 12, line 18, leave out 'or' and insert
'concerned, the organisation to which he or his party is affiliated, or the'.
No. 88, in page 12, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
'(d) has already decommissioned a substantial proportion of its illegally held firearms, ammunition and explosives in accordance with the provisions of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Act 1997 and is fulfilling a decommissioning timetable which will ensure that it has completed decommissioning before 22nd May 2000.'.
No. 89, in page 12, line 27, at end insert—
'(e) has commenced the dismantling of its paramilitary structure;
(f) in the opinion of the Chief Constable of the Royal Ulster Constabulary no longer represents a threat to the community.'.
No. 75, in clause 15, page 8, line 35, at end insert—
'(11A) A member shall be excluded from office if he is unable to satisfy the Assembly that he is committed to non-violence and exclusively peaceful means.
(11B) A Northern Ireland Minister shall not take up office until a resolution, "That the member be accepted as a Minister" has been approved by the Assembly voting on a cross-community basis in accordance with section 4(5).
(11C) The Assembly shall make its determination under this section based solely on the factors listed on section 23(7).'.

Mr. MacKay: I should like to put the amendment and the debate in their full context. The distinguished and important organisation Families Against Intimidation and Terror reliably informs me that, so far this year, there have been 58 republican so-called punishment attacks and beatings, and 53 loyalist punishment attacks and beatings. Therefore, we should go back and carefully examine exactly what has been said by the IRA and the loyalist paramilitary groups that have signed up to the Belfast agreement.
We are all grateful that there is a ceasefire—which is particularly welcome in the Province. However, the IRA has described it as a "cessation of military activities".

What is behind that phrase? Yes, the IRA has stuck to its word, in that there are no so-called military activities, but there is absolutely no doubt that there is what it would regard as "civil activity".
Although there is absolutely no doubt in the Province or on the mainland that there are no IRA-inspired bomb attacks on military or civilians targets—such as factories and shopping centers—I deeply regret that it cannot be said that there is absolutely no doubt about other activity in many communities in the Province, in which paramilitaries are not only active but dominant. In those communities, the agreement and the so-called ceasefire mean very little.
I should repeat the figures: 58 republican punishment beatings; 53 loyalist punishment beatings. It is very difficult for hon. Members representing constituencies that have not been affected by such beatings to imagine what they really mean. I should dwell on a couple of examples.
After the agreement was signed, John Brown, a 79-year-old New Lodge resident, was dragged from his flat and shot—or knee-capped, as the phrase goes. He will never walk again. For what it is worth to those who committed the atrocity, he was not the alleged child abuser for whom they were looking—that man lived in a different flat, across the corridor, and has now left the area. Such vigilante justice is unacceptable in any society. It is a great pity that it was not condemned by Sinn Fein; commentators and residents in that part of Belfast are convinced that it was an IRA punishment beating.
More recently, a brave and distinguished peace campaigner, Vincent McKenna, was viciously attacked in south Belfast. There had been threats against him, and he knew that that would happen to him if he continued to campaign.

Kate Hoey: Does the shadow Secretary of State realise that it is possible for paramilitary groups to be controlled? It was interesting that, during the three weeks of the Assembly elections, there were no so-called punishment beatings by the IRA. Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it rather strange that that can happen when it suits the people who control the thugs and gangsters, but that when it does not suit them, such things continue?

Mr. MacKay: I entirely endorse what the hon. Lady says, and I commend the amendment in her name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley). I shall deal with that issue in a moment, because we want to be fully aware that the tap can be turned on and off very easily. Before I do so, I shall mention the latest case, which involves Andrew Kearney.
Andrew Kearney was not associated with drug running and was not a member of a paramilitary organisation, but he was dragged from his flat in north Belfast, while asleep with his two-week-old baby. He was knee-capped and left to bleed to death. His family and Families Against Intimidation and Terror have no doubt that it was an IRA punishment beating. I gather that eight men were involved, so it was not simply a casual, chance mistake. Again, I regret to say that Sinn Fein has been totally silent.

Mr. David Winnick: Obviously, everyone on the Labour Benches condemns those acts


committed by thugs; they must be condemned by any decent person. The thugs have shown that they have no respect for the rule of law, which is not surprising.
It is important to recognise that the agreement and the Bill refer to a commitment to non-violence and to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I mention that because, when the right hon. Gentleman began his remarks, he said that, although there had been no bomb attacks, there had been other outrages. However, the agreement makes it clear that there must be a commitment to non-violence and to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. While the amendment is useful for debating purposes, what it seeks to achieve is already provided in the Bill.

Mr. MacKay: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's comments in their entirety, but he makes a valid point. If he will excuse me, I shall come to it shortly. I want to continue dealing with the present scene and to talk about exiles.
Many hundreds of people have been intimidated into leaving not just their homes but the Province. They are still not able to return to Northern Ireland, and there has been no word from either the paramilitary parties that were represented at the talks or from Sinn Fein-IRA that will encourage them so to do. Equally, there has been no other gesture, such as the revelation of the location of the unmarked graves of some of those who have disappeared. It is only if one speaks to victims' families that one realises how important it is to know where a loved one has ended up and is buried. All of us who have read Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report—I commend the Government on accepting it in full—will realise just how harrowing and trying that is.
I should like to quote from a letter that I received from Families Against Intimidation and Terror. The first quote relates directly to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) and underlines strongly the points that she made in her intervention. It states:
In the last month, we have been inundated with reports of IRA threats and harassment. In the three weeks of the Assembly Election campaign, the IRA called a complete halt to virtually all of their violent activities. They have now resumed.
That vividly illustrates the point made by the hon. Member for Vauxhall that the IRA can turn the tap on and off if it so wishes.
4.15 pm
In conclusion, it stated:
It is the view of FAIT that IRA activity remains at an unacceptably high level for Sinn Fein to take up positions in the Government of Northern Ireland. If Sinn Fein were allowed to sit in the Executive, while IRA violence continues then many would lose a lot of confidence in the Good Friday Agreement.
The Minister will be aware that that organisation strongly supports the Good Friday agreement and is a force for good in the Province that is doing a great deal of excellent work.
I make no apology for taking a little time to set out what is happening in the Province. It is all to easy for those of us with mainland constituencies, sitting here comfortably in the House of Commons, rightly supporting the Belfast agreement, rightly commending a positive vote in the referendum and rightly delighted that the people of

Northern Ireland have elected themselves an Assembly that is starting to work effectively, to think complacently that all is well. That is just not so for many ordinary, decent families across the Province who, more often than not, are the poorest and most vulnerable in the community.
Our amendments seek to strengthen the Bill in a way that we believe does not in any way breach the agreement, so that members of Sinn Fein-IRA cannot take up ministerial positions unless all violence, including the so-called punishment beatings, has ceased for good and the IRA is fully complying with the decommissioning commission. It is not for the Committee, and certainly not for me as shadow Secretary of State, to say who should or should not be Ministers in the Assembly. In fact, I see positive advantages to members of Sinn Fein, now that they have gained sufficient seats in the Assembly, taking up ministerial positions and taking some responsibility. However, in a free democratic society, people can hold ministerial and Executive positions only if they have totally, completely and permanently renounced violence.
As I have already said, renouncing violence does not just mean a military cessation; it means no punishment beatings and co-operating with the decommissioning commission so that all guns and explosives are handed in within two years. I do not for a moment question the integrity of the Secretary of State or any of her foreseeable successors, but, like the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, the Bill as it stands is woolly and uncertain on that point.
The Secretary of State has only to take into account whether Sinn Fein-IRA is fully co-operating. That leaves her open to political pressure which, at a particular point, could lead to her saying, "Yes, I have taken into account that they are not decommissioning. They are still kneecapping, but there are other good reasons why I think that they should continue to be Ministers." That is too great a risk for the House to take—too great a risk for democracy. Our amendments would ensure that Sinn Fein-IRA had to show the Secretary of State and the Assembly—both rightly have responsibilities—that they had given up violence for good and were decommissioning fully.
Anyone foolish enough to suggest that Sinn Fein has nothing to do with the IRA and no influence over it need only look at what Families Against Intimidation and Terror has said and listen to the Secretary of State, who repeated on Second Reading what she has said regularly—that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked. I agree with her, as does every commentator in Northern Ireland. Any reasonable person would agree.

Mr. John D. Taylor: The Secretary of State confirmed on Monday night that she believed that the IRA and Sinn Fein were inextricably linked. The Dublin Government hold that opinion, and I am glad that Her Majesty's Opposition hold it. The Ulster Unionists are worried that Social Democratic and Labour party Members, even when challenged on Monday night, did not confirm that they considered the IRA and Sinn Fein to be inextricably linked. Their failure to confirm that casts doubt on the role of the SDLP in the Assembly when an Executive comes to be formed.

Mr. MacKay: The right hon. Gentleman would not expect me to comment on the SDLP's policy on that or


any other matter. I note that the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) is in his place and he may try to catch your eye later, Mr. Lord. I am sure that he will wish to answer that point.
The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) knows that we have taken every opportunity to emphasise and underline the inextricable link, which needs to repeated again and again. In fairness to the Secretary of State, she has always done the same, as have the other Ministers present today.

Mr. Andrew Hunter: We cannot make policy pronouncements on behalf of the SDLP, but is not any ambiguity in that party's position about the inextricability of the link between Sinn Fein and the IRA a matter of deep regret?

Mr. MacKay: It would be a matter of regret. I do not want to act as a pundit, commentator and armchair critic. In defence of the SDLP, many of its prominent members, including Members of Parliament, have courageously stood up to IRA intimidation in their communities. I praise the hon. Member for South Down, his parliamentary colleagues and others for what they have done. They have been braver than some of us might have been in the same circumstances.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If the right hon. Gentleman agrees that the two are inextricably linked, how does he define the term? Does it not mean that they are one and the same and can never be separated?

Mr. MacKay: I find it difficult to speculate about whether the two will be inextricably linked for ever. That is a matter for Sinn Fein and the IRA. All that matters in this debate is that every reasonable person with any knowledge or understanding of Northern Ireland knows that, for the time being, they are inextricably linked and that Sinn Fein is responsible for the actions of the IRA. We have already illustrated that in the debate.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: rose—

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. MacKay: I am not making much progress, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and then to the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. McNamara: Clause 23(6) states:
If the Secretary of State is of the opinion that the Assembly ought to consider—

(a) a resolution…in relation to a Minister; or
(b) a resolution…in relation to a political party".

In other words, if a party is not fully committed to peaceful and democratic means, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may bring that to the attention of the Assembly and ask the Presiding Officer to table the necessary motion. The Assembly has that same power. As the Bill implements and mirrors the agreement extremely well and covers the hon. Gentleman's points, why is he seeking to undermine the agreement, precisely as he

sought to do in debates on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill? He knows perfectly well that the position of my right hon. Friend and of the Government is that stated in the Bill, which reflects precisely his points.

Mr. MacKay: If the hon. Gentleman had been slightly more patient, he would have heard me fully address that in my second and final point. I shall answer the point, although I should first give way to the hon. and learned Member for North Down, who I suspect will raise another point. When I fully answer the hon. Member for Hull, North, he will see that at no stage have we tried to undermine the agreement. We have acted as a responsible Opposition and done our job of scrutinising legislation. When we think something is wrong, we say so without fear or favour.

Mr. Robert McCartney: My point is very short and, perhaps, semantic. How can two bodies be inextricably linked "for the time being"? Inextricable means that they cannot ever be separated. What the right hon. Gentleman said is like saying that one is permanently committed to something for the time being.

Mr. MacKay: I have no intention of entering into a semantic debate with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nothing would please him more than for me to do so; he would have a great deal of fun. I shall stick to saying that everybody believes that, at this moment and for the foreseeable future, Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked, but there could be a circumstance in future in which they might separate. Such speculation is for later and is not relevant to the debate. As this is a time-limited debate, I am not serving the Committee by pursuing that red herring.
The hon. Member for Hull, North suggests that we are in breach of the agreement. He should take that up with the Prime Minister, whose words I quoted in a previous debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. During Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 6 May, the Prime Minister made it clear from the Dispatch Box that decommissioning was relevant and linked not just to the release of prisoners but to Ministers taking office. When pressed by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, he fully confirmed that. I have no doubt that he made it clear when he went to Northern Ireland in the final days before the referendum—campaigning for a yes vote, as were my right hon. Friend and I. That was the Prime Minister's interpretation of the agreement; it is my interpretation of the agreement.
If the Minister accepts my amendment, he will not be in breach of the agreement. He will merely be following what his Prime Minister said on the Floor of the House. We all wish the Minister well in the reshuffle in the next few days. I may embarrass him by what I am about to say.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman may endanger the Minister's chances.

Mr. MacKay: Indeed, what I say may ruin the Minister's chances in the reshuffle. We have the greatest respect for the Minister's negotiating skills and his work—very much behind the scenes—throughout the run-up to the Good Friday agreement. We hope that he stays in his present post, but we should be delighted if he were further promoted.

Mr. Winnick: There was no need for the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) to apologise for


describing to the Committee the acts of intimidation and violence; we have a duty to be kept informed. We are informed by reading about those acts, but we should discuss them, too, at the appropriate time, which is now.
The right hon. Gentleman also said that it is easy for us on the green Benches of the House of Commons to be somewhat isolated from what is going on. Fortunately, on the mainland we are not subjected to such acts of thuggery. None the less, as British citizens are subjected to them, it is only right that every opportunity should be given to discuss and denounce what are undoubtedly crimes.
As I said in my intervention in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, Labour Members deplore without exception all the acts that he described. However, it is important to recognise that what is written in the agreement and what is clearly set out in the Bill is a commitment to non-violence.
At the beginning of his speech, the right hon. Gentleman said that when we talk about violence we do not mean military action alone. I certainly agree. Of course the continuation of the ceasefire by the IRA and the loyalist groups that are observing it is welcome. That is how things should continue indefinitely; that goes without saying. However, the acts that the right hon. Gentleman described are clearly outlawed by the agreement, too.
4.30 pm
Annexe A to strand 1 contains a pledge of office that those who take up Executive positions have to take, as well as agreeing to all the other matter set out in the agreement. Item (b) of annexe A is a
commitment to non-violence and exclusively peaceful democratic means".
There is no ambiguity about that. If those who take up office are in any way involved in, or support, acts such as those that the right hon. Gentleman described, under the agreement they have no right to hold that office. There is no ambiguity about that either.

Mr. Jeffrey Donaldson: I have to dispute what the hon. Gentleman says. Nothing in the agreement prevents the representatives of paramilitary organisations from taking up ministerial office. They have to sign a pledge of office or give a commitment to a pledge of office, part of which includes a supposed commitment to peaceful means—but there is no way of testing that. We have seen in the past that Sinn Fein-IRA are prepared to sign up to the Mitchell principles and then they will drive a cart and horse through them—and there is nothing that anybody can do about it. Let people not be mistaken: Sinn Fein-IRA representatives will take ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Assembly, and the IRA will continue its acts of barbarism and violence.

Mr. Winnick: I am coming to the first part of what the hon. Gentleman said. He is, as he is entitled to be, totally opposed to the agreement, and he will find every possible argument and justification for trying to ensure that it is not put into practice and is not successful. I understand his point of view. I totally disagree with it, but I understand it; it comes from his particular political viewpoint.
The hon. Gentleman says that anybody can sign the pledge but that it would not mean anything. That is possible; no one denies it—but that is not the end of

the matter. The hon. Gentleman said what he thought would happen, and he would have us believe that no further action would be taken—that all that anyone who is either a party to violence or involved in violence has to do is give a pledge and that is the end of the matter.
That is not so. If it were, the Committee would be right to be concerned. However, clause 23 clearly sets out that the Secretary of State will give an opinion at the appropriate time on
whether the Minister or party concerned…is committed to the use now and in the future of only democratic and peaceful means to achieve his or its objectives
and
has ceased to be involved in any acts of violence or of preparation for violence".

Mr. Donaldson: rose—

Mr. Winnick: Before I give way to the hon. Gentleman again, let me say that it is wrong to give the impression that the pledge has only to be given and no further action will be taken. As is clearly set out both in the agreement and in the Bill, the Secretary of State has powers that no doubt she would use when it was alleged that a Minister was committed to violence.

Mr. Donaldson: My point—there is a distinction—is that the Secretary of State is not called on to give that opinion before the individual takes up ministerial office. She may give that opinion afterwards, but nothing in the Bill requires her to do so before the individual takes up office—there is no effective mechanism to prevent an individual from taking up office. I agree that the mechanism could subsequently be used to have the person removed from office, but where is the bar to someone taking up office? It certainly does not lie in the Secretary of State's hands.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman criticises the way in which someone can take up office, but he has conceded that the Bill contains appropriate safeguards and that giving a pledge is not the end of the matter for all time.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Gentleman has laid much emphasis on the safeguards relating to the exclusion from office of a person or a party involved in terror, but is he aware that, since 1 January this year, the Provisional IRA, for which Sinn Fein is a front—there will be two Sinn Fein Ministers—has shot 31 people, a number of them fatally? None of that has made the Secretary of State say, "You folk, while you continue to behave like this, will never get into the Assembly, let alone into Executive office."

Mr. Winnick: I believe that the hon. and learned Gentleman was present at the most recent Northern Ireland questions, when the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that, if there was evidence that people were a party to or supported violence, she would take appropriate action. None of us knows exactly who is involved in acts of violence. The Provisional IRA may be involved, and I am no more likely to act as an apologist for that organisation than is the hon. and learned Gentleman. However, we read about breakaway groups from the IRA—

Mr. Robert McCartney: indicated dissent.

Mr. Winnick: The hon. and learned Gentleman dismisses that, as he wants us to believe that the IRA and


Sinn Fein are continuing to engage in violence and that the agreement is bogus. Apart from the two Democratic Unionist party Members, no one is more opposed to the agreement than he is.

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Winnick: No, I shall not give way. The hon. and learned Gentleman strenuously opposed the agreement.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman has a long and distinguished record of speaking out against terrorism and violence, and I applaud that. Splinter groups may have been committing some of the so-called military activity on the border and elsewhere, but it is equally clear from the evidence given by Families Against Intimidation and Terror, the security forces and local residents that the IRA is behind the punishment beatings. Given that, does he agree that, until those beatings well and truly stop, Sinn Fein members cannot become Ministers in the Assembly?

Mr. Winnick: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind remarks, and I agree that acts of violence should be condemned at every opportunity, whichever side of the sectarian divide commits them. It is part of the responsibility of the Secretary of State, as set out in the agreement and clause 23 of the Bill, to decide whether action should be taken once the Assembly is up and running and the Executive is working.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell spoke kindly about my opposition to terrorist violence, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and her ministerial team are no less opposed to acts of violence. They denounce acts of violence in the same way as the right hon. Member and I do. There is no exclusive club for denouncing those acts.
We should bear in mind the fact that the purpose of the agreement is to bring about a situation in Northern Ireland that is totally unlike what has occurred in the last quarter of a century. The right hon. Member will agree with that. We want to bring about a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. In dealing with terrorist organisations—or with those who have been involved in such organisations—there is always the possibility that they could resort to acts of terror.
We are taking a gamble—no one would deny that. The difference between those of us who support the agreement and those who oppose it is that we believe that that gamble is worth taking. The ceasefire has taken place, and we have written into the proposed legislation safeguards to prevent those who are involved in violence from holding ministerial office in Northern Ireland. That is very important.

Mr. MacKay: The hon. Gentleman is never slow in giving the Committee his opinion, but he has failed to say whether he personally—in the light of compelling, overwhelming evidence that the IRA is continuing punishment beatings—would recommend that its representatives should not take office. When he says that we should take a gamble, does he mean that we should turn a blind eye to punishment beatings? If he does, that would be unfortunate and it would not match his record in the House.

Mr. Winnick: I meant that we were taking a gamble on whether the agreement will work and whether it will

lead to a peaceful future for Northern Ireland. There is no guarantee that any agreement will work. Those who support the agreement take the view that it is worth taking a chance—perhaps the word "gamble" was inappropriate—to see whether non-violent means work and to ensure that those who engage in violence will no longer be accepted.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell asked me a direct question. The right answer is that, if a Secretary of State comes to the view that those involved in ministerial office in Northern Ireland are—despite their pledge of office—involved in violence or support it, they should not be involved any longer. There is no difference between us on that.
The difference is whether the amendment is necessary. It goes outside the agreement, and we should be careful that we legislate precisely for what the agreement stands for. If we are against those holding ministerial office being involved in violence, that is right and proper, because such people would be breaking the agreement. Therefore, in giving every opportunity for the people of Northern Ireland to have a chance to live in peace, like the rest of us on the mainland, our responsibility is to legislate along the lines of the agreement—word for word, to a large extent. The amendment is unnecessary, because the safeguards already exist.
Our detestation of violence—which the right hon. Member for Bracknell stated—is written into the agreement and the Bill. We should proceed on the basis of the Bill.

Mr. David Trimble: As the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) and others have said, the entire process has been based on the fundamental principle that there must be a commitment to peace and democracy. That is the objective of the process—to put in place provisions that fill the democratic deficit that has existed in Northern Ireland for far too long, and to do so on the basis of peace. That has been the objective throughout.
In some aspects, we have been travelling in hope, rather than having a sound basis at every turn—particularly in terms of violence. However, travelling in hope is one thing; engaging in wishful thinking is another. We need to distinguish between the two. I disagreed with the use of the term "gamble" by the hon. Member for Walsall, North. I do not like to think that we are gambling with the security of a society and with the peace, livelihoods and lives of people. It may be necessary occasionally to take risks, but those should be carefully calculated and we should be careful of the threats involved.
The right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) referred to some of the appalling acts of violence in recent weeks. I will not labour the point with regard to them, except to underline some aspects which relate to the Bill. Those acts of violence are not the only ones; there have been others which we abhor and condemn. I would not want anyone to run away with the notion that, because we are focusing, for the purpose of this debate, on the actions of certain paramilitaries—particularly republican paramilitaries—we have forgotten other acts.
4.45 pm
Cases have been mentioned which occurred over the last weekend, including the attack on Vincent McKenna.


The key point is that Mr. McKenna—a former republican activist who knows who he is dealing with in the area—said to journalists afterwards that he recognised among his assailants two leading members of the IRA in the lower Ormeau area. That is clearly evidence.
Then, there was the attack on Mr. Kearney, which resulted in his death. As the right hon. Member for Bracknell pointed out, the number of people involved and the circumstances show that that was not just a casual matter, but involved an organisation. We should bear it in mind that Mr. Kearney considered himself under threat, to such an extent that his mother went to Sinn Fein some time ago and received an assurance from Sinn Fein that her son would be safe. However, after that, he got into another row with a godfather in west Belfast.
It is interesting that RUC officers are saying privately that Mr. Kearney's killing has all the fingerprints of the IRA—a term which I am sure is used metaphorically. That underlines what is obvious to anyone familiar with the situation in Northern Ireland. Those things happening in certain places, at certain times and in certain circumstances give rise to strong presumptions, which point in a particular way.
There was a case in Downpatrick a couple of weeks ago—in the constituency of the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)—in which an attack was carried out by, we believe, the IRA. The victim was shot six times in the legs and once in the back, aiming for the spine—what the IRA call a 50-50 job, as it gives the person a 50 per cent. chance of survival.
There was also the mortar attack in Newry. In Newry, the local council chairman is a Sinn Fein councillor. The mortar attack was claimed on behalf of persons close to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee, which is described as a republican dissident organisation. The Sinn Fein council chairman refused to condemn the attack when challenged to do so—he merely wished that those involved would stop it. We need something stronger than that.
A month or two ago, some hints appeared from Sinn Fein that it might finally be about to face up to its responsibilities—because Sinn Fein has responsibilities also. Hints were dropped by the leader in the Maze prison that the IRA might contemplate decommissioning their weapons at some point. At around the same time, leading members of Sinn Fein were briefing the press that they would deal with the issue of the disappeared. We were told that there would be an announcement soon, when they would reveal the whereabouts of those who have disappeared—believed kidnapped by the IRA, and murdered—over the past 20 years. Those hints were given in briefings to the press by senior members of Sinn Fein. They created the expectation that they were going to face up to their responsibilities.
Since then, the tempo of incidents stemming from dissident republicans has increased. Although they are rightly described as such, we cannot forget that the person close to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee who is believed to be directing operations is a former IRA chief of staff, who has access to IRA material and is believed to have received assistance from members of the IRA. The increased tempo of operations gives rise to suspicions.

Mr. Winnick: As I said, it may well be that the IRA—what we would usually refer to as the Provisional

IRA—is responsible, and we know what action needs to be taken in such circumstances. The right hon. Gentleman referred to dissident IRA groups. Is it not interesting that those groups, who totally oppose the agreement—so much for the claim among Unionists that what has happened is a victory for the IRA—have undoubtedly carried out other acts of thuggery, if not those particular incidents, because they want to discredit the agreement as much as possible and to destroy it? They view it as a betrayal of the original intention to bring about a united Ireland.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Gentleman is certainly accurate with regard to some groups—for example, members of Republican Sinn Fein, which has existed for a long time, who have throughout predicted that the current leadership of the republican movement would sell them out. Continuity IRA is linked to that group, so the hon. Gentleman's comments were appropriate in that regard.
The situation is murky when it comes to the group that is close to the 32 County Sovereignty Committee, which is a more recent development. Although a small number of people are known adherents, there is good reason to suspect that they are receiving practical assistance from members of the mainstream IRA. It is also believed that they have connections with people in the Belfast area who are still prominent in the current leadership of the mainstream IRA. The situation is not clear-cut.
We do not know all the ins and outs of the operations of the republican movement. Assuming that there are hawks and doves within that movement is a common mistake. There are no doves within that organisation, just hawks and fiercer hawks—I think that that is the best description. There is certainly jockeying for position within the organisation, and there may well have been a shift in emphasis as regards its objectives, but we do not know. We can only consider the circumstances, and I have been focusing on recent events, pointing out that the tempo of the operations of the 32 County Sovereignty Committee seems to have increased, which is a concern, particularly as we suspect linkages with and assistance from the mainstream IRA.
The leadership—or professed leadership—of the republican movement has not behaved responsibly in recent weeks. I am thinking in particular of the behaviour of the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), who was returned to serve that constituency but has not carried out his obligations in that respect. During the recent difficulties, he made a highly publicised visit to the Garvaghy road, not to render assistance or reduce the temperature but to increase it and wind the situation up at the beginning of the weekend of 12 July. No doubt he did so in the hope of inciting loyalists there to further violence. I am sure from his behaviour, demeanour and what he said that that was his intention, and that too shows where the republican movement may be at present, as do the beatings and killings, to which we have already referred.
On Second Reading on Monday, I referred to clause 23, in particular clause 23(2), pointing out that, although there may be some doubt about whether clause 23(1), which refers to individuals, could operate before people took up office, no such doubt can exist with regard to subsection (2), which refers to a "party". That subsection would make it perfectly possible for the Assembly to declare, prior to any individual taking up office, that it


lacked confidence in the commitment to peace and democracy of a political party. In such a situation, one should be focusing on the party and not the individual.
I believe that at least one Sinn Fein representative in the Assembly has not been an active terrorist—or at least I have been told so by journalists, and I occasionally respect what they say, although I have no other basis for the belief. I think that there is only one such representative, although there may be more. It is important to focus on the party and, given the characteristics of the organisation concerned, it would be appropriate to proceed against the party as a whole and record a lack of confidence.
As things stand, neither I nor anyone else who looks at the circumstances honestly and clearly can say that we have confidence in the commitment of Sinn Fein-IRA to peaceful means and the democratic process.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: What does the right hon. Gentleman imagine would be the impact of the amendments if there turned out to be a split within Sinn Fein, or any organisation involved in the Northern Ireland political environment, with one side committed to democratic progress and the other willing to embark on violence? Would the amendments not make it more difficult for the pro-democrats to win, and would they not be more likely to lose to others who are not committed to progress?

Mr. Trimble: I caution the hon. Gentleman against too quickly coming to the conclusion that there are hawks and doves within the republican movement and that it embraces people who genuinely want to move to a democratic process. I do not exclude the possibility of people changing, but we need evidence of that. We can only proceed on the evidence that is there, and the events of the past few weeks seem to show that that is pointing one way. We must take account of that fact.
I referred to the debate on Monday. I was particularly pleased at the comments of the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon), who concluded:
We stand by that agreement in all its manifestations, in its entirety and its integrity."—[Official Report, 20 July 1998; Vol. 316, c. 839.]
We should reflect on that final word. It is essential not only that we maintain the entirety of the agreement, of course, but that we maintain its integrity. Fundamental to the agreement is the commitment to peaceful means and the democratic process.
The Conservative amendment departs from the terminology that the Government have used in clause 23(7). There are arguments both ways. There are three main differences between the amendment and subsection (7).
The Bill directs the Secretary of State to "take into account" various factors. "Take into account" may be a weak formulation. The Bill says:
the Secretary of State shall in particular take into account
the factors listed. The amendment uses the term "if he believes". I am not sure that that is any stronger. It is six of one and half a dozen of the other.
The amendment refers to the commitment in the agreement to achieve the decommissioning of all paramilitary arms by 22 May 2000. That may be bold, but

the agreement clearly states a two-year time scale, running from 28 May. That part of the amendment would amplify, rather than change, the agreement, which would be a benefit.
5 pm
The insertion of the word "assisting" in paragraph (c), so that it reads
directing, assisting or promoting acts violence committed or planned by other people",
could also be beneficial. That paragraph is directed towards terrorism conducted by proxy, and the terminology in the amendment would be preferable.
The best amendments in terms of terminology are Nos. 200 and 201, because they make express reference to the "so-called punishment beatings". I appreciate the fact that those amendments are starred and cannot be made today, but I hope that the Government will consider them carefully on Report or in another place. I strongly support that appropriate change.
It has been said that, at the end of the day, it is for the Assembly to decide whether the exclusion provisions will operate. I understand the reasons for the concern that the system may not operate as it should. The first sentence in the relevant paragraph in the agreement says:
An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if (s)he loses the confidence of the Assembly…for failure to meet his or her responsibilities including…those set out in the Pledge of Office.
The second sentence is of a somewhat different character:
Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means, and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office under these provisions.
That sentence takes a much more peremptory approach. That is why I tabled amendment No. 115, which would move matters from being purely for the Assembly to decide, and would state the basic principles under which a person would not be entitled to hold office. That would be entirely within the letter and spirit of the second sentence in the paragraph and would make the matter justiciable, taking it out of the sole purview of the Assembly and allowing it to come before the courts.
Some may say that such matters would be difficult to prove in court, but being civil matters they would have to be proven only on the balance of probabilities. Some may apply extremely high standards and may not be convinced even by evidence that most reasonable men would regard as proving a case beyond reasonable doubt, so there may be some value in the balance of probabilities being sufficient.
It is essential to have the power to exclude those who are not committed to peaceful means and the democratic process. We have operated in the hope that people will move to a clear, unequivocal commitment to peace and democracy, and the talks process, the agreement and the Assembly have offered the opportunity to participate—that is the carrot that is held out—to people who may wish to move along the path to peace, but it is essential to retain the sanction against those who are not so moving, and especially those who think that they can take the benefit of the agreement without excepting the obligations that go with it.
Exclusion of Sinn Fein, for example, would not be the end of the Assembly. In case anyone has misinterpreted what we have said, let me underline the fact that we are


not following an agenda of exclusion. At the Assembly's first meeting, I said that we had never said that, because a person has a past, he cannot have a future.
We recognise that it is possible for people to change. We have seen it happen, not only with people but with organisations that were once involved in paramilitary activity and have emancipated themselves from it. I am thinking, obviously, of the official IRA—official Sinn Fein—which has moved over the years so that it is now in the democratic left, and clearly committed to peace and democracy. We trust that the same path is followed by some parties that were formerly involved in loyalist paramilitarism.
We want such change to occur. We want people to commit themselves unequivocally to peace and democracy, but we must say to them, with all the emphasis that we can muster, that they must indeed reform themselves, and that, if they do not, we will not be deceived by a few soft words and will insist on a course of conduct that is consistent with the changes that are necessary. As the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh said, it is essential to maintain not only the entirety, but the integrity of the agreement.

Kate Hoey: I know that amendments Nos. 200 and 201 cannot be voted on, but I hope that the Minister will consider how they may be introduced at a different stage.
What the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said about the integrity of the peace settlement is absolutely crucial. I campaigned for a yes vote in Northern Ireland, and I was absolutely delighted at the result, but I know from personal experience that the vote was finely balance a right up to the last, and the result looked extremely dodgy—to use a perhaps unparliamentary term—in the final week.
People had a desperate desire for peace. They wanted a coming together, and to feel that they could work with people from different communities. Underlying their hopes, however, was fear that paramilitary groups on both sides did not mean what they said. Parliament owes it to those who were influenced by the feeling that they wanted peace above all to make sure that the Bill does everything possible to act on fear of continued violence and fear that people are not committed to the democratic road.
The terminology of clause 23 is vital. I cannot see why the Minister cannot accept amendment No. 15. Decommissioning must be mentioned somewhere in the Bill. It was mentioned in the agreement, and it played a great part in the last few days of the referendum campaign.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The hon. Lady emphasises how fragile the vote was right up to the last moment. Does she agree that the Prime Minister's pledges on Thursday 21 May on the release of prisoners and on whether Sinn Fein could sit down in government without decommissioning allayed the fears of many of those who ultimately voted yes?

Kate Hoey: The hon. and learned Gentleman pre-empts me. I was going to say how important the Prime Minister's words were. My right hon. Friend made it clear that Ministers in the Government must be committed to peaceful means. He did not give a commitment that his every word would be in the Bill, but there is no doubt that

the people of Northern Ireland, which is part of the United Kingdom, felt that that was what their Prime Minister meant. How his words are implemented is up to Parliament.
Clause 23(1)(c) includes the incredibly wide ranging definition, "for any other reason". Given that definition, I cannot understand why the Bill cannot include a reference to
not co-operating fully with any Commission",
which would send out the straightforward message that we mean what we say about decommissioning. I mean it—and I hope that the rest of Parliament means it—when I say that decommissioning must happen. I do not say that every armament must be handed over, but parties and Ministers must make a commitment to co-operate with the commission.
Families Against Intimidation and Terror is a well respected organisation. Its development officer, Glyn Roberts, has done an enormous amount of work, just as her predecessor did. FAIT works within the community where some of the worst atrocities are happening. It is that sharp end of day-to-day experiences that those of us who represent constituencies in the rest of the United Kingdom cannot possibly understand. Although I come from Northern Ireland, and go home there regularly, I never feel able to talk about what it is like to live on the peace line in north Belfast, or to live in places where there is intimidation, fear and a threat of violence that might affect one's own family, children or parents.
5.15 pm
FAIT does not speak without thinking, so I am worried by the fact that it has said clearly that the level of IRA activity is so unacceptably high that Sinn Fein cannot take positions in the Government of Northern Ireland. Horrific events over the past few weeks include the Vincent McKenna incident and the killing of Mr. Kearney, which are both being investigated by the Royal Ulster Constabulary. If, at the end of the investigations, there is categorical proof that Mr. Kearney was killed by members of the IRA, will that mean, even at this stage, that representatives of Sinn Fein cannot sit down in Government in the new Assembly?
It is all very well to talk in parliamentary language, but the people of Northern Ireland want to know what proof is required to demonstrate that the IRA or the paramilitaries on the so-called loyalist side are still engaging in terrible actions. If we can prove that only breakaway groups on either side are conducting those actions, those groups must be chased by the authorities. However, there is a real possibility that, in our desperation to make the agreement work, to make the Assembly work and to bring about reconciliation, we will continue always to give the benefit of the doubt to the terrorists. The Minister must reassure us that that simply will not happen.
Why is it impossible to accept the amendments tabled by the First Minister of the Assembly? It is right that we are passing the Bill as quickly as we can, but we must not forget how much time we spent on similar legislation for the Scottish and Welsh assemblies. Some of my hon. Friends have shown irritation at anyone who wants to question parts of the Bill. They seem to have the idea that, since the agreement has happened, we should all just pass the Bill. That is not what Parliament is for. We must get


the Bill on the statute book as quickly as we can, but reasonable people must be allowed to ask reasonable questions. We should try to learn from those who live in Northern Ireland, and who know what is happening there. That is why the Minister should ensure that action is taken against those involved in the so-called punishment beatings, intimidation and terror that happen in Northern Ireland every day—although, strangely enough, they all stopped during the Assembly elections. The people of Northern Ireland must be treated with the same dignity that we expect for our constituents.

Mr. Peter Robinson: The way in which we deal with clause 23 will determine the extent to which the Assembly is likely to function properly. I want to deal with the deceit and hypocrisy surrounding dealings before, during and after the referendum on issues central to clause 23.
First, I should say to the Minister that, for the most part, I regard the references in clause 23 as a faithful representation of what is outlined in the agreement. It contains some excesses and we have tabled amendments to deal with those excesses, which principally relate to clause 23(1)(c). For the greater part, the clause puts into legislative form the commitments made in paragraph 25 of the Belfast agreement.
When I read that agreement and interpreted it, I, like many of my colleagues, concluded that it meant precisely what the Minister and the drafting staff have put into the Bill. We went up and down the country warning the people of Northern Ireland that, if the measure was passed by the House of Commons and given support in a referendum, Sinn Fein would automatically have representation in Government and there would be no effective way of removing its representatives from Government. Therefore, whoever else in the Committee might be surprised when they see in bold relief the terminology used in clause 23, no one among my colleagues will be in the least surprised at its impact.
Paragraph 25 of the agreement states:
An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if (s)he loses the confidence of the Assembly, voting on a cross-community basis, for failure to meet his or her responsibilities including, inter alia, those set out in the Pledge of Office.
I shall come to the remaining part of that paragraph later, having reached a very different conclusion from the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble).

Mr. Winnick: The hon. Gentleman says that he and his colleagues did everything they could to warn the electorate in Northern Ireland about the agreement, yet, despite that warning, the people of Northern Ireland by an overwhelming majority decided to support the agreement. Should we not follow the large majority in Northern Ireland who made that decision in a democratic way?

Mr. Robinson: I shall come in a moment or two to the reason why people in Northern Ireland voted for the agreement in the numbers that they did in the referendum. If the hon. Gentleman had listened to the speech made by his hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey), he would have heard about some of the issues that led the people of Northern Ireland to vote in the way that they did.
During the referendum campaign, when my colleagues and I held meetings up and down the Province and indicated our understanding of the agreement and what it would mean, there were voices that said, "That is rubbish. Don't listen to these men—they are misleading you. We shall be able to control whether Sinn Fein-IRA get into an Executive. The Unionists themselves will be able to control that matter." That was a commitment given to the people by the Ulster Unionist party.
The Belfast News Letter of Saturday 9 May carried an article under the heading "Unionists must go forward with confidence in themselves". The article consisted of Mervyn Pauley interviewing the leader of the Ulster Unionist party, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann. In that interview, the right hon. Gentleman said:
I think the unionist community has confidence in itself. We have the capacity ourselves to exclude Sinn Fein from office, if we so wish, because we are going to have a majority in the Assembly, now that is clearly going to be the case. Why then should people worry what an Assembly will do if they are going to have the majority in it? The Agreement itself is absolutely clear that only people who have a genuine commitment to peaceful means and a democratic process can accept office. Those words were fudged in the past but they were fudged by governments. It's not going to be a question for Government in the future, it's going to be a question for the people of Northern Ireland and their elected representatives.
The words were clear. The right hon. Gentleman said, and I repeat:
We have the capacity ourselves to exclude Sinn Fein from office.
The "we" is defined as the Unionist community.
Having made the challenge on Second Reading, I make it again: where in the Bill—or, indeed, the agreement—will the Unionist community have the capacity to exclude Sinn Fein from Government? Clearly, it cannot be done. The people of Northern Ireland were deceived by the right hon. Gentleman on that vital issue.
However, the right hon. Gentleman was not the only one who made remarks of that sort. The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom had received opinion polls and reports from focus groups, all of which showed him that, as the hon. Member for Vauxhall said, support was moving away from the yes campaign; and that the arguments of the no campaign that Sinn Fein would be in government and could not be removed from government were beginning to hold sway in the Province. Something had to be done, and the Prime Minister took control of the yes campaign in Northern Ireland. His office almost moved to Northern Ireland, and it was his spin doctors who started working in the Province.
What did the Prime Minister have to say to the people of Northern Ireland on this vital issue? I quote from the Belfast News Letter of 14 May the Prime Minister's words:
People need to know that, if they are sitting down in the room of the executive of the Northern Ireland Assembly with other people then they are not sitting there with the guns under the table, outside the door and all the rest of it… That can't happen and we must make it absolutely clear that that can't happen.
Of course, under the Bill, it will happen. Under the Bill, there is nothing to stop it happening.
The Prime Minister came to Balmoral. It is remarkable that he came all that distance to that function apparently primarily to convince an individual who was not at Balmoral, the hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson). During the speech he made there,


he listed a series of factors that were crucial to the question whether the terms and spirit of the agreement were being met by the participants. Throughout, there were clear indications that the Prime Minister was speaking to the people of Northern Ireland and telling them, "Don't worry about these issues. When it comes to the legislative process, I'll take care of it." That is what the people were led to believe—that the Prime Minister had it all in hand.
However, still the people were not entirely convinced, and the Prime Minister had to make another journey to Northern Ireland. On large billboard posters in handwriting, he signed five pledges to the people of Northern Ireland, one of which was to exclude from the Government of Northern Ireland those who would use or threaten violence. Again, under the Bill, there is no provision for such people to be excluded from Government, save if they themselves are not prepared to accept the pledge of office, or if the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady)and his party decide that they want them to be excluded. [Interruption.] From what has been said, there can be little doubt about that, and I can almost guarantee support from the Unionist-designated Members of the Assembly.
If the hon. Member for South Down would like me to give way so that he can state that, on the basis of what he knows today—based simply on the cases of Vincent McKenna and Andrew Kearney—he recognises the involvement of Sinn Fein-IRA in the killing and beating and that they have breached the conditions set down in the Bill, I shall give way. If he wants to tell me that, on that basis, he would be prepared to have them excluded or removed from office, I shall give way to him. The hon. Gentleman does not want me to give way, which is telling.
As the spokesman for the official Opposition, the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) said, the Prime Minister made, in this House, the clearest possible statement demonstrating that he wanted substantial decommissioning before Sinn Fein could enjoy the benefits of prison releases or its presence in the Government of Northern Ireland.
The Prime Minister had earlier written to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann:
I understand your problem with paragraph 25 of Strand 1 is that it requires decisions on those who should be excluded or removed from office in the Northern Ireland Executive to be taken on a cross-community basis. This letter is to let you know that if, during the course of the first six months of the shadow Assembly or the Assembly itself, these provisions have been shown to be ineffective, we will support changes to these provisions to enable them to be made properly effective in preventing such people from holding office.
5.30 pm
To the casual reader, the uninitiated and the layman, that letter might seem to provide a guarantee from the Prime Minister, and the right hon. Gentleman was prepared to take it as such. However, the more careful reader will have noted the use of the word "support". The letter said,
we will support changes to these provisions".
It does not say that the Prime Minister is committed to changes to the provisions; it says simply that he will support changes.
The Prime Minister had to use the word "support" because it is not up to him, or even the House, to make that determination. He uses that word because he

recognises that there are others whose support is also required. They are those who signed up to the Belfast Agreement on 10 April. It is a multi-party agreement and cannot be unilaterally changed, which is why the Prime Minister did not give a commitment unilaterally to change it. He said that he would simply be one of those who supported changes if the provisions did not meet the requirements of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann.
Will the Minister confirm or deny my interpretation of the Prime Minister's letter? Will he, in responding to the debate, make it clear that the support referred to in the letter would be provided along with the support of others, or are the Prime Minister and Government prepared to introduce legislation to change the provisions of the Bill if it does not prove to be effective? I suspect that my initial interpretation of the letter is accurate, and that the Prime Minister has no intention of acting unilaterally.
I find it difficult to accept the amount of hypocrisy on this subject. I find it difficult to listen to Members telling the House or the Committee how they need to make changes to the Bill when they accepted its provisions in the first place. If those provisions are not good enough, why did they sign up to them on 10 April? If these matters needed to be dealt with, why did they not include them on 10 April before they signed? They signed up to the agreement, including the provisions that the Committee is now discussing. Not only that—in the opening part of the agreement, they pledged to work in good faith
to ensure the success of each and every one of the arrangements to be established under this agreement.
Having made that pledge, they now, at least publicly, state that they are seeking to have the arrangements improved beyond the agreement's initial provisions.
More than that, those people went out and sold the agreement to the electorate in Northern Ireland. Now the right hon. Member for Upper Bann has profited by becoming the First Minister designate in Northern Ireland. While his amendment—and the Tory amendment—would slightly strengthen the terminology in the Bill, and to that extent would be welcome, it is unworkable. Even though the wording in various subsections might be tightened, the responsibility would still fall on the Assembly, in a cross-community vote. A political decision will therefore be made. A decision will be made by nationalists about whether they will ditch Sinn Fein. Even if every Unionist in the Assembly and an overwhelming majority of Assembly Members voted for the exclusion of Sinn Fein, its Members would remain in the Executive unless the SDLP voted to exclude them.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the agreement and the Bill to give effect to it are the product of the Hume-Adams agreement in 1993, and that it is certain that the SDLP will never move to have its partner, Sinn Fein, removed from the Assembly?

Mr. Robinson: I agree entirely with the hon. and learned Gentleman. Nobody labours under the assumption that SDLP Members will wake up one morning and decide that it is time to exclude Gerry Adams and Martin McGuinness from the Assembly. No matter what they do, that will not happen. It is therefore necessary for the Government to include in the Bill a mechanism whereby they can be excluded which does not require consensus in the Assembly. The amendments in my name and those of


my hon. Friends would have had that effect. They would have turned the situation around and required Sinn Fein Members to get a cross-community vote to remain in office.
I cannot speak to those amendments, Nos. 80 and 81, because unfortunately they were not selected. Strangely, however, much of their substance is included in amendment No. 75, which was selected, even though it relates to clause 15, not clause 23. I am sure that it would have been better if the Chairman of Ways and Means had selected amendments Nos. 80 and 81 instead of amendment No. 75. I can, however, discuss the principle because it is the same in each case—and, as I know that the Government will not readily accept any of the amendments, it will probably make no practical difference in the end.
Our amendment would have put the onus on Sinn Fein-IRA to convince the Assembly, rather than the other way round. The Committee needs to deal with that matter. It is not good enough for the Government to hope that things might turn out all right on the day. The killing of Andrew Kearney was clearly carried out by the Provisional IRA. Nobody but the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) seems to be in any doubt about that. The RUC, the newspapers and the family recognise that the killing was carried out by the IRA. On that basis, I am entitled to ask what would happen if we were in the Assembly today, making a decision about the exclusion of Sinn Fein-IRA. I do not need to ask, because I know.
Exactly the same criteria apply with regard to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. Has anyone heard the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland make a statement to the effect that, because of the killing of Mr. Kearney by the Provisional IRA, its prisoners will not be released because the killing was a breach of the provisions of that Bill?
There was an attempt to kill the well-known bomber republican—but now "peace activist"—Mr. Vincent McKenna. He identified among his assailants well-known members of the battalion from the Ormeau road of the Provisional IRA. There could not be better evidence; but the Secretary of State and others continue to bury their head in the sand, and will not take action. The Secretary of State is required to take action now on that issue, not simply as a result of the Bill, but on the basis of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. If she is not prepared to operate on the basis of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, she will not operate on the basis of the provision that we are debating.
Let no one therefore rely on the third of the three mechanisms for dealing with this matter—the mechanism whereby the Secretary of State, considering that someone has breached the provisions of the Act, asks the Presiding Officer to have the matter dealt with by way of a resolution. That will be the slowest of the mechanisms, and the least likely to be used. Even if it was used, the decision as to whether that person was expelled would not be for the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State can only have the matter referred to the Presiding Officer and, through the Presiding Officer, to the Assembly. Ultimately, the decision—once again—will be a political

decision; a decision which will fall when the hands of the SDLP refuse to co-operate to have their colleagues in Sinn Fein expelled from the Executive.
The sad reality, therefore, is that this is an unworkable provision. It is a facade, a pretence and a deceit. The Committee should not support such hypocrisy.

Mr. McGrady: Thank you for the opportunity to participate in the debate, Mr. Lord.
The right hon. Members for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) have given a series of vivid descriptions of the violence that continues to be perpetrated in our community. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall said that those of us who live in Northern Ireland have greater personal experience of the tragedy of that violence. I have visited the scenes of murders by both loyalist and republican paramilitaries and their offshoots—whatever name they may use—seen the bodies, and visited those maimed and the families of victims. I have seen those things within miles of my home and throughout my constituency.
One of the major driving forces behind the Belfast agreement is the desire to eradicate from our community that type of violence. The second is the desire to set up structures by which we shall be better governed in ways that affect the economic and social aspects of life, our standard of living and our way of life. In my view, those two main pillars have been the thrust of the agreement, and they are the reason why it is so important that it is sustained against the onslaught of those who oppose it for their own moral, political, party or personal purposes.
No one ever pretended that, on a given day, at midnight, a key could be turned by which the violence of a quarter of a century would be immediately turned off. Any sensible person knows, and would anticipate, that elements of violence would continue, sometimes perhaps orchestrated, sometimes individually perpetrated. We could not have come through 25 or 30 years of the most extreme form of personal violence without being left with a legacy in the shape of those who, having perpetrated acts of violence, are conditioned to do the same again when they are thwarted by events.
I fear that, in a debate such as this, personal vendettas and grudge bearing, both of which exist, and inter-paramilitary strife—which exists, and has expressed itself in violence from time to time—may be seen as a reason to topple the very delicate series of structures that the two communities have put together and approved. It is important that we do not play party politics with every incident that occurs and every act of violence that is perpetrated in our community. Such incidents will happen, but we must be assured that violence in all organised aspects ceases forthwith, and that the ceasefires that were laid on the table before the agreement was signed are sustained and continued.
5.45 pm
We have heard the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) and others talk about Sinn Fein being debarred because it is inextricably linked with the IRA. My understanding is that Sinn Fein can be barred only if it is inextricably linked with the IRA, which is organisationally continuing to perpetrate violence. That is


entirely different from what has been said. Much of the debate, especially from the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson), has not been—

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. McGrady: I will not give way.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman mentioned my name.

Mr. McGrady: I am sorry; I did mention the right hon. Gentleman's name. I give way.

Mr. Taylor: As I pointed out earlier in the week and today, Her Majesty's Opposition, the Secretary of State and the Dublin Government have all said that the IRA is inextricably linked with Sinn Fein. Will the SDLP say the same?

Mr. McGrady: I regret that I made a mistake in mentioning the right hon. Gentleman. Although I shall reply to his question, I was referring to what the right hon. Member for Strangford said—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is the right hon. Member for Strangford."] I am sorry; I meant the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney), who made much of the semantics of the words "inextricably linked" and made the point that it is not a bar to holding office for a political party to be inextricably linked to a paramilitary organisation, be it republican or loyalist. However, the party would be debarred if that paramilitary element continued violence, and broke the ceasefires that it subscribed to.
The hon. and learned Member for North Down argued that we must be careful not to interpret individual acts of violence—which we must have, unfortunately, as a hangover of 25 or 30 years of violence—[HON. MEMBERS: "Must?"] I say "must" in the logical sense that such acts are going to happen. People have been desensitised to many of the norms of group behaviour and many aspects of observance of the law. We shall be unable to re-establish the validity of good conduct throughout our community—at least to the level of communities that have not had the violence that we have had—until we have had a time of peace, a time of working together and an opportunity to produce, for the benefit of the people, some of the fruits of that work.
Many contributions to the debate have been attacks on other parties, such as the Ulster Unionist party—the favourite target of the hon. Member for Belfast, East, for obvious reasons. I remind the Committee that the Democratic Unionist party and the United Kingdom Unionist party withdrew from the talks many months before the agreement was signed. It ill behoves them now to criticise other people who signed the agreement, when they did not even engage in it. Why criticise it now? Why were they not there, criticising, and making the amendments that they are advocating today?
On, I think, Monday night and again earlier this evening, the hon. Member for Strangford—the right hon. Member for Strangford; I have the nomenclature right on this occasion—challenged me, as did the hon. Member for Belfast, East, on the attitude of the SDLP. Let me make it clear, as I did on Monday night, although I do not think that the right hon. Member for Strangford was in his place

at the time, that we will subscribe totally and completely to the letter and spirit of the agreement that we have signed up to.
That means, and I cannot state it any clearer, that any party—of course, they refer only to Sinn Fein—who is engaged in violence for the furtherance of a political purpose will not receive our support for office in that Assembly. Can anything be clearer than that?

Mr. John D. Taylor: The more the hon. Gentleman gets involved in this subject, the more he convinces me that one should vote against the Bill. Will he repeat what the Secretary of State has said—that Sinn Fein and the IRA are inextricably linked? I am not asking him to condemn violence or to run away from the subject. Will he just answer that one question: are they inextricably linked?

Mr. McGrady: I have no hesitation in subscribing to that view. My party leader said many, many months ago that the IRA and Sinn Fein were one and the same. He said it publicly. What is the mystery? Why has it been brought up now? The right hon. Member for Strangford Gentleman certainly prevaricates in a mischievous way, one day supporting the agreement, the next day opposing it by innuendo, but perhaps he will settle down some time and be either committed to it or against it.

Mr. Winnick: Is it not a fact that, since the terror campaign begun by the IRA, the SDLP has been, almost on every occasion, totally opposed to those terrorist activities? Have not SDLP activists in Northern Ireland been targeted time and again, and has not the record of my hon. Friend's party been, from the beginning, one of total commitment to constitutional democratic politics and total opposition to terrorism?

Mr. McGrady: I thank the hon. Member for his helpful and supportive intervention. I did not say that in response to the criticisms from the other side of the Committee, simply because it is a fact that is well known and does not require constant repetition from me or any other member of my party. We have had members who have been killed, blown up, maimed, assaulted, burned out or stabbed to death. We have never, by word, deed, policy or statement, on any occasion encouraged or supported violence. In fact, our total stance for 25 or 30 years has been to fight it, not just in the media, but on the streets of our communities and villages and at election times, when we did it time and again.
When most other people were keeping their heads below the parapet, it was my party that kept faith with democracy and non-violence. In the long run, although it is now criticised for some reason, that led other people who were engaged in violence out of that violence and into the democratic process, in the hope that we could eradicate that violence once and for all from our community.
That is what this Belfast Good Friday agreement is about. As I said, one of the twin pillars is to ensure that violence and the gun are taken out of Irish politics once and for all, after hundreds of years of revolution, rebellion and violence. That other pillar is to promote the economic and social well-being of our people, because they do go hand in hand: we cannot have one without the other.
However, I warn the Committee not to expect that, in the community that we have created, if you like, in Northern Ireland over the past 30 years of violence, intolerance and desensitising to the horrors of violence, we can magically at 12 o'clock on some appointed day turn off all violence. I would love that to happen, but I am not so stupid as to believe it will. That is why we have to be careful not unnecessarily to drive people who have been cajoled, coaxed and brought from violence to peace, back into violence. That is vital.
I say to the Committee again, so that I will not be asked the question again, that my party and I will support the Belfast agreement to the letter and spirit of the law. If any party is associated with violence, we will dissociate from it in relation to participation in ministerial position.
I could extrapolate on this, but I do not want to. We have a phrase in Northern Ireland: "what aboutery". One person says one thing, and another comes back by way of argument with, "What about…?" I could refer to Drumcree, and politicians who were there.
Violence occurred at Drumcree. A machine gun was used against the police at Drumcree. Blast bombs and steel darts were used. I was not there, but certainly other Members of this House were. Are they associated with that violence? I am not going to make that judgment. I am going to have to wait for the judgment of the police, security forces and the rest as to whether a party is inextricably linked with an act of violence, not with an organisation of violence. Then, rightly, the agreement, in spirit and law, must be applied.
The amendment is restrictive, because the simple language already in the Bill is all-embracing and does reflect, as the hon. Member for Belfast, East and the right hon. Member for Bracknell have quoted, paragraph 25 of the agreement, which states:
Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means".
That is all-embracing, and that is what the Bill is saying. In fact, the agreement goes much further, and makes it a condition of office that the pledge of office be faithfully and fully implemented.
The Bill goes even further, which causes me concern, although I have not tabled an amendment on it. It states that the Assembly may resolve that a Minister no longer enjoys the confidence of the Assembly "for any other reason". That is all-embracing for persons or parties. I draw the Committee's attention to clause 23, which says that individuals can be debarred not only for their personal act, but for the acts of their party. That is clearly stated. That has not been highlighted in some of the debate that we have had so far.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East said that he went up and down Northern Ireland saying that Sinn Fein, as he said, although I am sure that he meant anyone else, could not be removed from office if its members were found to be guilty of participation and association with an act of violence. Clause 23 clearly states that there are several mechanisms by which they can be removed—by the Assembly, by the Secretary of State and by the Presiding Officer, with cross-community support. There are at least three mechanisms by which a Minister can be removed from office.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I think that the hon. Gentleman misquotes the hon. Member for Belfast, East

(Mr. Robinson), who is not in his place. The hon. Member said that the Unionist community could not have those people either excluded or removed from office because of the requirement for cross-community consensus. If that cross-community consensus were not made available by the SDLP, they would remain. That is the point he made.

Mr. McGrady: The hon. and learned Gentleman makes his valid point. I heard what I heard, but I am subject to that correction. I will certainly read Hansard in the morning, because it was said on two different occasions this evening. On one occasion, it was certainly said that, if these people are put in office, they cannot be removed. There was no qualification as to by whom and by what mechanism.
Ministers who are appointed and who contravene the spirit and the law of the Belfast agreement can be removed under clause 23 by the Assembly, by the Presiding Officer, and by the Secretary of State acting through the Presiding Officer. Those are three clear mechanisms and they can be brought into operation by saying that those persons did not use only democratic and non-violent means. Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (1) give the broadest possible reasons for such mechanisms to be applied and voted upon.
6 pm
I understand the intent of the right hon. Member for Bracknell in his amendment, and I understand what lies behind the amendment of the hon. Member for Vauxhall. However, in a real way the provisions in those amendments are totally embodied in the general descriptions in subsection (1). If we were to move away from that general description, I would be fearful of restricting the rights of the Assembly, the Presiding Officer or the Secretary of State, and of circumscribing their actions.
I feel, without feeling very strongly, that we should leave the clause as it is. It is all-embracing and would deal with a catch-all situation that we might not anticipate tonight, but which may arise in the months ahead. I am inclined to leave the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Öpik: As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman does not object in principle to the general content of the amendment. What would we lose by the additional clarification that the amendment would provide?

Mr. McGrady: Amendment No. 15 states that we should leave out lines 28 and 29 and insert the five paragraphs. Those five paragraphs are specific, whereas what would be removed is general. The general is always better than the specific. The right hon. Member for Bracknell and the hon. Member for Vauxhall rightly drew attention to decommissioning, punishment beatings and other aspects and attributes of violence, but they are all there in the terms of the agreement. Although I understand the reasoning and the sentiment behind them, I believe that the amendments would restrict the ability to deal with matters not specifically mentioned.

Mr. Hunter: I want to speak primarily to amendments Nos. 15 and 16. Many of the salient points have already been made, not least by my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay) and there is no reason to


revisit them. In passing, I must say how strongly I agree with the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey). I want to re-express one of her points in my own way. We are so heartily sickened by Northern Ireland's sectarian violence and so earnestly yearn for it to end that there is a danger that we will suspend our critical faculties and, like automatons, support any measure or gesture that purports to promote peace. There is a danger in so doing that we will defeat the objective.
I am glad that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) has returned to the Chamber. I listened carefully to his speech, and I want to make my main points in reply to his arguments. He said—I paraphrase—that we should not, could not, must not or cannot legislate outside the agreement. My arguments in support of amendments Nos. 15 and 16 comply with the remit that the hon. Gentleman wishes to impose on the debate. I do not agree with him that we must not, could not, should not, or cannot legislate outside the agreement. My understanding of the triple lock is that Parliament has a proactive role in the process and has every right to interpret and implement the agreement. However, that is not my main point.
I recognise the imperfection and inadequacies of amendments Nos. 15 and 16. They were pointed out by the hon. Member for Belfast, East. However, I believe that the amendments are a distinct step in the right direction, and I shall argue that they are entirely consistent with the agreement. They arise essentially from the same arguments as those put by Conservative Members during the debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. I cannot really understand why the Government will not accept them. I will clarify and enlarge on that point.

Mr. Winnick: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that he is against the agreement and that he voted, as he has every right to do, against the Bill on Second Reading?

Mr. Hunter: Oh, yes. I have never sought to conceal that. It is irrelevant to the amendment, but my opposition to the agreement is on public record.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 consist of five unnumbered paragraphs. The essential point is that all those unnumbered paragraphs are entirely consistent with the spirit and the letter of the agreement. The first unnumbered paragraph reflects closely and is a re-expression of clause 23(1)(a). The second unnumbered paragraph is as near as possible identical to subsection (7)(b). The third paragraph is a re-expression of subsection (7)(c) and the fifth paragraph is virtually identical to subsection (7)(d). We immediately establish in four of the five paragraphs of the amendment that there is no difference in degree or kind from the content of the Bill as it stands.
The one area in which the amendments introduce a novel dimension is in the fourth paragraph. We need to compare that paragraph with paragraph 3 of the section entitled "Decommissioning" on page 20 of the agreement. I defy any hon. Member to say where that paragraph differs in substance, significance or meaning from paragraph 3 of the decommissioning section in the agreement. This is the issue on which many Conservative Members had difficulty in understanding the Government's opposition to a comparable amendment to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill just a month ago.
We are tabling amendments that are entirely consistent with the spirit and the letter of the agreement as interpreted by the Government in the Bill and in the agreement itself. I do not believe that our argument was answered adequately by the Government during the debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, and, like many other hon. Members, I look forward to what will be said today.
Reduced to simplicity, amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consistent with the agreement and comply with the requirements demanded by the hon. Member for Walsall, North and, within the hon. Gentleman's remit for the debate, they cannot be rejected.
There is a second basis of argument for my belief that the amendments are essential. I pick up a point made by the hon. Member for Belfast, East, and perhaps made also in an intervention by the hon. and learned Member for North Down. It is a generally agreed fact that very many Unionists voted yes in the referendum because of their understanding, and the media's reporting, of what the Prime Minister said on two visits to Belfast—one on the Thursday just over a week before referendum day, and the other on the day before polling day. There was also the handwritten note, and the letter that he wrote, which was published in the Irish Newsand the Belfast News Letter. I should like briefly to concentrate on that letter.
The Prime Minister's letter appeared in those two major Northern Ireland newspapers on the morning of referendum day. He wrote:
Representatives of parties intimately linked to paramilitary groups can only be in a future NI government if it is clear that there will be no more violence and the threat of violence has gone.
That doesn't mean just decommissioning but all bombings, killings, beatings and an end to targeting, recruiting and all the structures of terrorism.
The Prime Minister continued:
I have set out the tests for this. They will be enshrined by law and these tests will be applied".
That is what the Prime Minister said. However, the perception remains that he and the Government have yet to deliver on that pledge.

Mr. Robert McCartney: Those such as myself—perhaps lawyers—accustomed to the language felt that the Prime Minister's pledges had as many holes as a colander. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the undoubted intention of the pledges was to persuade the electorate of their substance, regardless of the escape clauses with which they were festooned?

Mr. Hunter: I very strongly agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman that that is indeed the case. If one analyses extremely carefully the Prime Minister's quoted words, one realises that they equate with neither the media presentation nor the general public's perception of them.
A point that I have made more than once is that the media presentation and public perception of those words were public matters—published in the press—and that the Northern Ireland Office did not issue any statement of correction or denial. Unwittingly, I have no doubt—I must be charitable—it perpetuated and enhanced the misunderstanding.
I come to the end of the argument that I want to present. First and foremost, amendments Nos. 15 and 16 are consistent with the agreement and with the Government's


interpretation of the agreement as presented in the Bill. Secondly, the Government have still to account for the perception and the reality of the Prime Minister's as yet unfulfilled pledges.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: I affirm my own total and unequivocal opposition to violence in politics within a democracy—in case any Committee member wishes to ask me about my position on the matter. In fact, I am so opposed to such violence that I should include in my definition of it not only life-threatening actions but intimidatory or insulting behaviour within a political body that might silence those who have a view to express. That definition should express the fulness of my commitment to anti-violence. I am not a recent convert to that view, but have held it throughout my political life.
The hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) expressed my own thoughts so well that I have curtailed my speech, and will add only a few further thoughts.
If the words of clause 23 did not fit the agreement, I am quite that Ministers would themselves have tabled amendments for debate today so that the words fit the agreement entirely. As they have not tabled such amendments, I can only presume—as I have not been involved in the talks that arrived at the agreement—that the Bill's words fit the agreement.
This debate has lasted for the best part of three hours, and it is interesting that the violence committed by only one quarter has been mentioned. Let me say—having expressed my total opposition to violence of any kind—that it is interesting that only violence committed by the nationalist side of the equation has been mentioned, except when the hon. Member for South Down, correctly, said that he was opposed to violence from any quarter, nationalist or Unionist.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Robert McCartney: Is the hon. Lady aware that the reason for concentration on what might be loosely called "republican" violence—as opposed to so-called "loyalist" violence—is that, under the d'Hondt principles, the only representatives inextricably linked with violence who have any prospect of becoming a Minister in the Executive are those associated with republican violence? However, I am sure that every Committee member will endorse her sentiments—with which I should like expressly to be associated—about opposition to violence of any kind.

Mrs. Fyfe: I am aware of the d'Hondt principles, but let me continue with the point that I was making.
Opposition Members would have done their case more credit if they had been even-handed in their references to violence. We have, after all, only in recent weeks seen extreme violence at Drumcree. Can it be the case that not a single person aiming missiles at police and the Army is a member of any political party? Perhaps that is so. However, if any person taking part in the violence was a member of a party, I wonder what that party is doing about expelling that member? It cannot be taken for

granted that that party is totally opposed to violence if it ignores a member behaving in that manner. Although I certainly do not know for certain, it is hard to credit that not one of those engaged in that extreme violence against our own police and Army has membership in any political party.
I agree with another point made by the hon. Member for South Down—about how senseless it is to expect that violence will totally stop. South Africa, for example, would still be in the throes of apartheid if, on both sides, its people of good will had not been willing to come together and acknowledge that extremists on both sides would regard some actions of people on their own side as a sell-out and refuse to accept them. We have to try to move forward, and the Bill is a part of it.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Fyfe: I shall continue.
Far greater risks come from not supporting the Bill. I was really worried when I heard an Opposition Member—whose constituency I forget, but we are colleagues in the Council of Europe, and we agree on so many things—say that he is now dubious about the Bill. I am seriously worried about that.
Committee members have criticised what they consider to be the loose terminology of the phrase "any other reason", which is mentioned in two parts of the Bill. The phrase is all-inclusive, and could mean any type of violent activity. If one is going to object to someone on the grounds of only one particular aspect of violence, we will be back to an exercise of, "What about?" Human ingenuity can create endless ways in which to act violently or to intimidate others. Should the Bill contain an endless list of every form of violence that anyone has imagined? Of course not. The phrase "any other reason" has therefore been included in the Bill, so that the Assembly itself can act as it sees fit in each case.

Mr. MacKay: I know that the hon. Lady would not want deliberately to mislead the House, and I shall help her put the record straight. I made it clear in my opening remarks that I condemned all violence, and I mentioned the number of paramilitary punishment beatings as well as the number of IRA punishment beatings. The hon. Lady was present for Second Reading on Monday, and heard me condemn what had happened at Drumcree and elsewhere. I suspect that she was also present last Wednesday during Northern Ireland questions, when the same condemnation was made. At no point, have I or any member of my party been anything but even-handed in our condemnation of terrorism, violence and intimidation.
We are now discussing the Assembly, however. As the hon. and learned Member for North Down said, there is only one paramilitary party that, under the d'Hondt principle, could possibly take ministerial office, and that is Sinn Fein-IRA. Inevitably, we have had to concentrate on that.

Mrs. Fyfe: I missed the opening sentence of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, so he possibly made that reference then, but it was not in my hearing. I apologise if I have misrepresented what he said, but I find—I am sure that Hansard will show me to be correct—that most of the debate has been about violence from one side.
Opposition Members are talking about the current situation, but we are talking about creating an Assembly which, we must surely hope, will last for many years, so the same issue could arise in future in respect of a member of some other group, Unionist or nationalist. My point is that it is perfectly reasonable to retain the words "for any other reason" in the Bill, because that allows the widest possible interpretation of what the Assembly itself could decide was unacceptable conduct. To return to my earlier point, I would even include in the term "any other reason" intimidatory behaviour in the Chamber.

Mr. Öpik: I am sure that the hon. Lady agrees that one of the biggest problems in this debate, and, one can predict, one of the biggest problems of the Assembly's actions in regard to violence, is likely to centre on interpretation. How does the hon. Lady feel about what I presume to be the intention behind the amendment, which is to specify as much as we can in order to reduce the element of subjectivity—and, more to the point, the vagueness—which could cause enormous dispute within the Assembly itself?

Mrs. Fyfe: I thought that I had dealt with that point. If we were to attempt to include every possible activity that could be counted as a violent act, the Bill would have umpteen pages, and still leave something out. It is better to leave the words "for any other reason", so that the Assembly has the authority to act on what it finds unacceptable.
I hope that what I have said has contributed to the debate. It is important to get behind the Bill, and behind the agreement. We all know what will happen if they should fail.

Mr. Donaldson: Government Members, especially the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), have referred many times to those of us who oppose the agreement. The referendum is over, lest the hon. Gentleman has not noticed. The people of Northern Ireland voted for the agreement, and that is why we are discussing the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be saying that any issue that we raise is invalid because we oppose the agreement. I hope that that is not the case, but he keeps asking the same question and one wonders what his motive is.
We are dealing specifically with the issue of the holding of ministerial office. It is important to focus on that aspect of the clause, because some of the contributions today have ranged very widely.
For the benefit of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mrs. Fyfe), let me make it clear that my colleagues and I have always opposed terrorist violence, from whatever quarter it comes. When I was 18 years old, I joined the Ulster Defence Regiment, part of Her Majesty's security forces, to fight terrorism. I had the option to join the Ulster Volunteer Force, but I am opposed to paramilitary, terrorist violence and went out to defend the community against all forms of terrorism and paramilitary organisations. Let the hon. Lady be in no doubt that my colleagues and I oppose terrorist violence from wherever it comes.
Let us understand what we are dealing with. The only terrorist organisation with political representatives in the Assembly that is eligible to hold ministerial office is

the IRA. That is the reality. The UVF's representatives—the Progressive Unionist party—secured only two seats in the Assembly, so they would not be eligible for ministerial office. The Ulster Democratic party, representing the UDA, had no one elected to the Assembly and has not the remotest prospect of holding ministerial office. The only organisation eligible to hold ministerial office is the IRA, and we are focusing on that because the clause deals with the holding of ministerial office. I hope that the hon. Member for Maryhill understands why that has been the focus of our attention. We have to deal with the reality.
The IRA has the prospect of holding ministerial office in the Northern Ireland Assembly—and I mean the IRA, because many of the members of Sinn Fein who have been elected to the Assembly are senior members of the Provisional IRA. The hon. Members for Belfast, West (Mr. Adams) and for Mid-Ulster (Mr. McGuinness), who do not take their seats in the House, are both acknowledged publicly to have been in the past, if they are not at present, members of the army council of the IRA. Those are the very people who are about to become Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland. Let us understand the reality of the situation.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand my hon. Friend's argument, but does he accept that the legislation would cover any party or any person engaged in violence? Therefore, it is not aimed at any particular party or person, although I understand my hon. Friend's argument in the context of the current situation.

Mr. Donaldson: I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Of course, the principle applies to all paramilitary and terrorist organisations. We believe that the provisions in this Bill, like those in the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill, are inadequate. They do not define clearly the requirement for paramilitary-linked political parties to be committed to exclusively peaceful and democratic means. I know that Labour Members say that the agreement and the Bill state that people holding office should be committed to peaceful means, but there must be some accountability. There must be some means of holding people to that commitment. Our view is that the Bill's provisions are inadequate for holding people to account. That is where I am coming from.
I was present during the talks that led to the agreement. I was present because I wanted a fair and honourable agreement that provided the basis for a way forward for Northern Ireland. I voted against the agreement because of the situation that we are discussing now. I am not prepared to accept as Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland people who are members of the IRA army council—members of an organisation which has not given up violence for good.
What we have is a ceasefire from the IRA. It was breached at the weekend by the murder of Andrew Kearney. It was breached by the beating of Vincent McKenna, and it has been breached on numerous occasions since it was brought into effect. It is not a permanent end to violence; nor does it represent a commitment to exclusively peaceful means. Those who hold ministerial office should be committed to peaceful means, and the organisations to which they are linked must demonstrate that in a tangible form before people become eligible to hold ministerial office. I object to the


Bill because it contains nothing that would prevent representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA from becoming Ministers in the Government of Northern Ireland.
6.30 pm
I understand that the Secretary of State will lay before the House next week an order specifying the organisations that will benefit from the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill by having their terrorist prisoners released early. It will be interesting to discover what she does—whether she specifies that the Provisional IRA will benefit from the provisions of the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill in the aftermath of the murder of Andrew Kearney and the beating of Vincent McKenna.
That will be the first test of the commitment of the Government and the Secretary of State to hold those organisations—including the Provisional IRA—to the commitment to exclusively peaceful means. We shall see whether the Government have the courage to take those people on and hold them to account or whether, when it comes to the test, they will do what they have done in the past, and will no doubt do in future, and fudge the issue and walk away. The prisoners will be released, the murderers will walk on to the streets early, and representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA will hold ministerial office.
There are transitional arrangements in the agreement to cover the period between the establishment of the Assembly following the election on 25 June and the transfer of power from Parliament to the Assembly. The transitional arrangements include provisions for shadow Ministers. Paragraph 35 of the agreement refers to
those…serving as shadow Ministers".
Even before the provisions of the Bill can be implemented, representatives of Sinn Fein-IRA will be entitled to be appointed as shadow Ministers. So what will happen on the transfer of power? Schedule 14 states:
Any nomination of a person to hold a Ministerial office made before the appointed day shall on and after that day have effect as if it had been made under section 15.
In other words, when representatives of Sinn Fein are appointed as shadow Ministers without any of the provisions of the Bill and the so-called safeguards in it coming into effect, they will automatically become fully appointed Ministers. So how can we prevent them from taking up office? How can we hold them to the commitment to exclusively peaceful means?
The only real provision is for a cross-community vote in the Assembly. The three options set out in the Bill to exclude people from office require the passing of a vote in the Assembly based on cross-community support. In effect, that gives a veto to one political party in Northern Ireland—the SDLP. Will the SDLP ever vote to remove Sinn Fein-IRA from office? That question was posed to the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady), but he has not yet answered it. It was also posed to the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and he has not yet answered it.
What are the circumstances in which the SDLP will vote in the Assembly to have Sinn Fein-IRA removed from office? I do not believe that it is in the interests of Northern Ireland or in the interests of the agreement—

even though I opposed it—and the workability of the institutions established by it to leave one political party to decide whether Ministers who are linked to an organisation that is engaged in violence should continue to hold office. If that continues to be the only effective mechanism whereby those people can be excluded from office, I do not believe that the agreement or the institutions created under it will work effectively or properly.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a precedent in the attitude of the SDLP at the talks at Dublin castle? He will remember that we went there for a week, but the talks never took place because the IRA had committed an offence just the day before. The question arose whether Sinn Fein representatives should be expelled from the talks, and the SDLP was against their expulsion.

Mr. Donaldson: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is absolutely right. On the one occasion when the SDLP was put to the test on the exclusion of Sinn Fein from the talks, on the basis that the IRA had breached the Mitchell principles, it opposed the expulsion of Sinn Fein.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the hon. Gentleman inform the Committee what was the punishment for the deaths of two Roman Catholics? Two of its own co-religionists were murdered and it was proved that they were IRA killings. What punishment did Sinn Fein receive?

Mr. Donaldson: I can answer that. The punishment was two weeks' expulsion from the talks process. It was one week for one murder. That was the penalty, and it was opposed by the SDLP. What confidence can I or the people of Northern Ireland have in the mechanisms in the Bill that provide that people who breach the commitment to peaceful means will be removed from office I am afraid that I have no confidence in those mechanisms.

The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. Paul Murphy): We have had an extremely important debate—possibly one of the most important debates during our consideration of the Bill in Committee. It partly, but not completely, mirrors the debate on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. The circumstances are different and we are considering a different law, but some of the points that were made in respect of that Bill were made in respect of this one, too.
I fully acknowledge the importance and seriousness of the issues that reflect real concerns not just of right hon. and hon. Members, but of very large numbers of people who live and work in Northern Ireland.
I also understand the point made by the right hon. Member for Bracknell (Mr. MacKay). I know that he is fully committed to the agreement and its success. I am grateful to him for his kind words. I do not know whether he knows everything that I know, but I admire the fact that he spoke in the spirit of the agreement that he and I support.
I accept that those who did not support the agreement spoke with complete sincerity on the basis that we need to address the issue. We have partly done so in this debate. I hope to answer a number of points that have been raised, and to make some points of my own.
The debate is set against a backcloth of appalling violence and civil unrest in the past three weeks in Northern Ireland. There has been violent disorder, disgraceful attacks on the forces of law and order, and the deaths of three young boys. Many right hon. and hon. Members have referred to the dreadful beating of Mr. McKenna and the murder of Mr. Kearney. Of course, the Government join all right hon. and hon. Members in utterly condemning such murders and so-called punishment beatings which, as a number of hon. Members have said, have no place in a civilised society. A vigorous police investigation into Mr. Kearney's death is under way. The RUC is pursuing the possibility that the murder was carried out by the Provisional IRA. We await the outcome of those investigations.
It is important to consider the issues in the context not just of what has happened in the past three or four weeks, but of what has happened since the referendum. The issues were rightly raised during the referendum campaign. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister sought to respond to those concerns carefully, responsibly and within the terms of the agreement. He clarified them in his speech at Balmoral on 14 May. Clause 23 reflects what the parties negotiated in the agreement and what the Prime Minister promised during the referendum campaign.
The details of the clause are important, but we must not lose sight of the fundamental principles underlying the agreement. The first is set out in paragraph 25 of strand 1, which says:
Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office".
As my right hon. Friend said in his Balmoral speech:
Those who have used the twin tactics of the ballot box and the gun must make a clear choice. There can be no fudge between democracy and terror.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Minister saying that what the Prime Minister said was not outside the terms of the agreement?

Mr. Murphy: The Prime Minister clarified the agreement during the referendum campaign. He made it clear what he, as the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, believed to be the case on the agreement. Taking all the responsibilities of his office, he assured people of the issues to which I have referred.
The second fundamental principle of the agreement is that the new institutions of government in Northern Ireland are open to all those who share a common commitment to democratic and exclusively peaceful means. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) said when he addressed the first meeting of the new Assembly:
We are not saying, and we have never said, that the fact that someone has a certain past means that he cannot have a future. We have always acknowledged that it is possible for people to change.
The third fundamental principle is that the agreement stands or falls as a package. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said at Balmoral:
The agreement is what has to be implemented in all its parts.
There can be no cherry-picking. The agreement was negotiated by the parties and was approved overwhelmingly by the people of Northern Ireland. Our task is to implement it fairly and fully.
That means that we must work to implement all the elements of the agreement—those that benefit us and those that are uncomfortable for us. We have listened carefully to the arguments, but we cannot accept proposals that call those fundamental principles into question.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: It is clearly the responsibility of Members of Parliament to stand by the side of the victims—those who are still being intimidated and beaten up, and those who have been killed. The actions of paramilitaries are directed at generating publicity and public reaction—local or national. Our job is to try to ensure that the publicity and the public reaction work against them. Will the Minister make it clear how we can turn the temperature up so that those who might exclude themselves by association with continuing violence will say so openly, or stop the violence so that there are no more victims?

Mr. Murphy: That is achievable in the context of the clause. Our overriding task is to give effect to the agreement. Paragraph 25 says:
An individual may be removed from office following a decision of the Assembly taken on a cross-community basis, if (s)he loses the confidence of the Assembly, voting on a cross-community basis, for failure to meet his or her responsibilities, including, inter alia, those set out in the Pledge of Office. Those who hold office should use only democratic, non-violent means and those who do not should be excluded or removed from office under these provisions.
That paragraph makes some fundamental points: any decision on exclusion from ministerial office is for the Assembly; such a decision must be taken on the basis of cross-community voting; the relevant grounds are any failure to meet the Minister's responsibilities; and, in particular, those grounds include any breach of the commitment in the pledge of office required of all Ministers, to
non-violence and exclusively peaceful and democratic means".
The clause reflects each of those elements. It is right that the grounds for exclusion emphasised in subsections (1) and (2) reflect the agreement's emphasis on the use of only democratic, non-violent means and embrace other breaches of the pledge of office.
6.45 pm
I understand the thinking behind the amendments, but I cannot accept them, because they would replace or add to the grounds for exclusion set out in subsections (1) and (2), which closely reflect the terms of paragraph 25 of strand 1 of the agreement and the accompanying pledge of office, with other tests and criteria, however well meant or sensible. To do so, would be to move away from the specific terms of paragraph 25 of strand 1. I am confident that the wide grounds available under the clause fully meet the requirement of the agreement that those who do not use only democratic and non-violent means should be excluded from office.
I cannot accept the amendments tabled by the Democratic Unionist party, because they would remove the requirement for cross-community support, which is a key element of the agreement, repeated twice in paragraph 25.
We have set out to give effect to the promise of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister in his Balmoral


speech to give legislative expression directly and plainly to the factors that he set out. The Prime Minister's starting point was:
The Agreement is what has to be implemented in all its parts.
That is also the starting point of the clause. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said:
In clarifying whether the terms and spirit of the agreement are being met and whether violence has genuinely been given up for good, there are a range of factors to take into account".
The four factors that he set out are in the Bill. He said:
Those factors provide evidence upon which to base an overall judgment—a judgment which will necessarily become more rigorous over time.
Subsections (6) and (7) provide for the Secretary of State to reach such an overall judgment, taking into account the four factors that the Prime Minister set out. The Secretary of State can then communicate her opinion to the Assembly and require it to consider whether to exclude someone from ministerial office. However, the final decision is for the Assembly. That is vital to the agreement.

Mr. William Thompson: Is it not a waste of time for us to be here considering the Bill in Committee if everything must be exactly as set out in the agreement? Does that not show that this Parliament, which is supposed to be sovereign, has to give way to an agreement? If this is a sovereign Parliament, we have the right to put forward amendments, which the Minister should consider on their merits, rather than being stuck with an agreement that appears to be set in stone, like the laws of the Medes and the Persians.

Mr. Murphy: I do not know too much about Medes and Persians. The people of Northern Ireland were clear about what they wanted. They voted for the agreement by a large majority in the referendum. The fact that we have spent the past three hours debating just one clause of an 82-clause Bill shows that our time has not been wasted and that the House of Commons is an important place for such discussions. Indeed, in the next 15 or 20 minutes, we shall doubtless be voting on whether we should accept the clause.
It is no surprise to be faced with amendments very similar to those tabled to the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. They fall broadly into two groups. Some propose new factors, and some seek to turn the factors from ones leading to an overall judgment to ones leading to four separate tests or hurdles. Some try to do both. Of course, we listened during proceedings on the Northern Ireland (Sentences) Bill. As the Committee will know, the factors were changed and improved as a result of those debates. In particular, factor (d) was expanded, at the urging of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann, to make it clear that there must be full co-operation in implementing the decommissioning section of the Belfast agreement. I cannot accept amendments that would add to the factors set out by the Prime Minister. Nor can I accept those that turn the factors into separate tests. As the Prime Minister said:
We are not setting new preconditions or barriers.
Of course gaps must be filled. In answer to the hon. Member for West Tyrone (Mr. Thompson), another reason why the House of Commons must debate such matters is precisely that there are gaps to fill. In places

where the agreement is silent, we, as a House of Commons, must legislate. We have in all events to follow the spirit of the agreement The agreement is silent on the length of any period of exclusion, for instance, so we have inserted a 12-month period of exclusion. Additionally, there is provision in the Bill to exclude parties. There could also be breaches that give grounds for exclusion that are not personal, but have to do with party policy or the position of the party as a whole. In such cases, it would be nonsense to exclude one Minister, only to see him or her replaced by another from the same party who, for exactly the same reason, would be in breach of his or her responsibilities.
I have received representations from hon. Members, particularly those representing Northern Ireland, regarding the phrase "for any other reason". Indeed it must be rethought. We shall be consulting parties during the next month or two before the Bill goes to the other place to see whether we can make an acceptable change to that part of the clause A number of the concerns expressed come down to this: the provisions in the clause sound fine in theory, but will not be used in practice; they will prove ineffective. If so, the Prime Minister has made it clear that we shall support changes to make the provisions effective.
I assure the Committee that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take her responsibilities extremely seriously. Where she considers that a genuine issue arises on whether a party or an individual has breached the fundamental commitment to exclusively peaceful and democratic means, she will act to ensure that the Assembly considers the issue. She will, of course, closely consult security advisers, particularly the Chief Constable. She will particularly take into account not only the activities of an individual or a party, but those of any paramilitary organisation to which an individual or party is clearly and inextricably linked in a relationship of support.
The hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson) referred to cases that have arisen in recent weeks. If it is found that the murder of Mr. Kearney may have been carried out by members of the Provisional IRA, the Secretary of State must take that factor into account during her deliberations. All such matters can be taken into account only by her, because she receives the proper advice from the Chief Constable, the security forces and others.
Then—this is the essence—the matter will be relayed to the Assembly, which can discuss it if one of three triggers is used. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister can initiate a debate; the Assembly, with its 30 Members, can ask for and initiate a debate; or the Assembly can be obliged to debate a matter if my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State so writes to it as a result of the four factors to which I have referred. Those factors are to be taken in the round by the Secretary of State as an indicator of whether there is a genuine commitment to non-violence and to democracy.
Ultimately, it is and must be the Assembly which has control over such matters. I am responsible to the House of Commons as a Minister; an Assembly Minister is responsible to the Assembly. That is a very important concept, which the Assembly must take into account.
I simply repeat that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has indicated—my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has, too—that, in the event of this not working properly, we shall have to look at it again, when that time


comes. Of course, I hope that that time will never come. I also hope that the right hon. Member for Bracknell will feel inclined to withdraw his amendment.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The Minister has said that he is answerable to this House and, therefore, for its decisions. What would he say if a majority of Tories, rather than a majority of his own party, was required to keep him in office?

Mr. Murphy: I should be a very lucky man.

Mr. MacKay: On behalf of the Opposition, I cannot guarantee that we would keep the Minister in office, much as we admire him.
I have listened carefully to the Minister's very reasonable response, but I regret to say that I am still convinced that we would be right to press our amendment to the vote. The Prime Minister clarified the agreement on the Floor of the House on 6 May and subsequently in his Balmoral speech. Our amendments are within the scope of the agreement. They would strengthen the working of the Assembly. Given a background of violence, punishment beatings and—so far—no co-operation with the decommissioning commission, it is in the interests of the House and of the Assembly that the amendments are agreed.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 144, Noes 272.

Division No. 347]
[6.56 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Donaldson, Jeffrey


Ancram, Rt Hon Michael
Duncan Smith, Iain


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Norman
Fallon, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Fearn, Ronnie


Beggs, Roy
Flight, Howard


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Forsythe, Clifford


Bercow, John
Foster, Don (Bath)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Fox, Dr Liam


Blunt, Crispin
Fraser, Christopher


Boswell, Tim
Gale, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Garnier, Edward


Brady, Graham
Gibb, Nick


Brake, Tom
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gorrie, Donald


Browning, Mrs Angela
Gray, James


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Greenway, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Grieve, Dominic


Burnett, John
Gummer, Rt Hon John


Burns, Simon
Hammond, Philip


Burstow, Paul
Hancock, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (NE Fife)
Harris, Dr Evan


Cash, William
Hawkins, Nick


Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)
Hayes, John



Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Chidgey, David
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Chope, Christopher
Horam, John


Clappison, James
Hunter, Andrew


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Colvin, Michael
Jenkin, Bernard


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Cotter, Brian



Cran, James
Key Robert


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Kirkwood, Archy


Day Stephen
Laing, Mrs Eleanor





Leigh, Edward
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Letwin, Oliver
Soames, Nicholas


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Spicer, Sir Michael


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Steen, Anthony


Luff, Peter
Streeter, Gary


McCartney, Robert (N Down)
Stunell, Andrew


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Swayne, Desmond


McIntosh, Miss Anne
Syms, Robert


MacKay, Andrew
Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)


Maclean, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


McLoughlin, Patrick
Thompson, William


Madel, Sir David
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Maples, John
Tredinnick, David


Maude, Rt Hon Francis
Trend, Michael


May, Mrs Theresa
Trimble, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Tyrie, Andrew


Norman, Archie
Viggers, Peter


Öpik, Lembit
Walter, Robert


Ottaway, Richard
Wardle, Charles


Page, Richard
Waterson, Nigel


Paice, James
Wells, Bowen


Paisley, Rev Ian
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Prior, David
Whittingdale, John


Randall, John
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Redwood, Rt Hon John
Willetts, David


Rendel, David
Willis, Phil


Robathan, Andrew
Wilshire, David


Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Ross, William (E Lond'y)
Woodward, Shaun


Ruffley, David
Yeo, Tim


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


St Aubyn, Nick



Sayeed, Jonathan
Tellers for the Ayes:


Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)
Mr. Tim Collins.




Noes>


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Caton, Martin


Ainger, Nick
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clapham, Michael


Allen, Graham
Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)



Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Clelland, David


Atkins, Charlotte
Coaker, Vernon


Banks, Tony
Coffey, Ms Ann


Beard, Nigel
Cohen, Harry


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Colman, Tony


Begg, Miss Anne
Connarty, Michael


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Corston, Ms Jean


Blears, Ms Hazel
Cox, Tom


Blizzard, Bob
Cranston, Ross


Boateng, Paul
Crausby, David


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Cummings, John


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bradshaw, Ben
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John (Copeland)


Brinton, Mrs Helen



Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Dalyell, Tam


Browne, Desmond
Darvill, Keith


Buck, Ms Karen
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Butler, Mrs Christine
Davidson, Ian


Byers, Stephen
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Caborn, Richard
Dawson, Hilton


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Denham, John


Canavan, Dennis
Dobbin, Jim


Cann, Jamie
Doran, Frank


Caplin, Ivor
Dowd, Jim


Casale, Roger
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth



Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)






Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Lock, David


Edwards, Huw
Love, Andrew


Efford, Clive
McAvoy, Thomas


Ellman, Mrs Louise
McCabe, Steve


Ennis, Jeff
McCafferty, Ms Chris


Ewing, Mrs Margaret
McDonagh, Siobhain


Field, Rt Hon Frank
McDonnell, John


Fisher, Mark
McGrady, Eddie


Fitzpatrick, Jim
McIsaac, Shona


Fitzsimons, Lorna
McKenna, Mrs Rosemary


Flint, Caroline
Mackinlay, Andrew


Follett, Barbara
McNamara, Kevin


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
McNulty, Tony


Foulkes, George
McWilliam, John


Fyfe, Maria
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Gapes, Mike
Mallaber, Judy


Gardiner, Barry
Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)


Gerrard, Neil
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Godman, Dr Norman A
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Godsiff, Roger
Martlew, Eric


Goggins, Paul
Maxton, John


Golding, Mrs Llin
Meale, Alan


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Merron, Gillian


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Grocott, Bruce
Milburn, Alan


Hain, Peter
Miller, Andrew


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mitchell, Austin


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hanson, David
Moran, Ms Margaret


Healey, John
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Morgan, Rhodri (Cardiff W)


Hepburn, Stephen
Morley, Elliot


Hesford, Stephen
Mudie, George


Hill, Keith
Mullin, Chris


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Hoey, Kate
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Hood, Jimmy
Murphy, Paul (Torfaen)


Hoon, Geoffrey
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Hopkins, Kelvin
Norris, Dan


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Howells, Dr Kim
O'Hara, Eddie


Hoyle, Lindsay
Olner, Bill


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
O'Neill, Martin


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Organ, Mrs Diana


Hurst, Alan
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Hutton, John
Palmer, Dr Nick


Iddon, Dr Brian
Pearson, Ian


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Pendry, Tom


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Perham, Ms Linda


Jenkins, Brian
Pickthall, Colin


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Pike, Peter L



Plaskitt, James


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pope, Greg


Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)
Pound, Stephen



Powell, Sir Raymond


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Purchase, Ken


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kemp, Fraser
Radice, Giles


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Rammell, Bill


Khabra, Piara S
Rapson, Syd


Kidney, David
Raynsford, Nick


Kilfoyle, Peter
Reid, Dr John (Hamilton N)


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Kingham, Ms Tess



Kumar, Dr Ashok
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Laxton, Bob
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Lepper, David
Rogers, Allan


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris





Ruddock, Ms Joan
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Timms, Stephen


Ryan, Ms Joan
Tipping, Paddy


Salmond, Alex
Touhig, Don


Sarwar, Mohammad
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Savidge, Malcolm
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Sawford, Phil
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Sedgemore, Brian
Vaz, Keith


Shaw, Jonathan
Vis, Dr Rudi


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Ward, Ms Claire


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Wareing, Robert N


Singh, Marsha
Watts, David


Skinner, Dennis
White, Brian


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wicks, Malcolm


Soley, Clive
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Starkey, Dr Phyllis



Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stevenson, George
Winnick, David


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stoate, Dr Howard
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Wood, Mike


Stringer, Graham
Worthington, Tony


Sutcliffe, Gerry
Wray, James


Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)



Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)



Temple-Morris, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)
Mr. John McFall and



Mr. David Jamieson.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Seven o'clock, THE FIRST DEPUTY CHAIRMAN proceeded to put the Question necessary to dispose of proceedings to be concluded at that hour.

Question agreed to.

Clause 23 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14

FIRST MINISTER AND DEPUTY FIRST MINISTER

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 71, in page 7, leave out lines 13 and 14.

The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 72, in page 7, line 15, leave out 'Two candidates standing jointly', and insert 'Candidates' 
No. 73, in page 7, leave out lines 26 to 28.
No. 99, in page 7, line 27, leave out from 'otherwise' to end of line 28 and insert
'the Secretary of State may by Order permit the other to continue in office for not more than seven days.'.
No. 141, in page 7, line 27, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 28 and insert
'hold office as a caretaker for up to three months pending the election of a First Minister and Deputy First Minister'.
No. 74, in page 7, leave out lines 29 and 30 and insert—
'(7) Where the office of either the First Minister or the deputy First Minister is vacant, an election shall be held under this section to fill the vacancy.'.
No. 142, in page 7, line 29, after 'Where', insert 'either'.
No. 143, in page 7, line 30, leave out 'to fill the vacancies'.

Mr. Robinson: The amendments are probing, as the Minister will recognise. It is remarkable that the principal


position in the Assembly Executive will be held jointly. Will the Minister say whether there are any circumstances in which the First Minister can act independently of the Deputy First Minister? I see none.
Paragraph 9 of schedule 12 states:
A reference to—

(a) the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland; or
(b) the chief executive member,
shall be construed as a reference to the First Minister and deputy First Minister acting jointly.
There was a Prime Minister in the old Parliament in Northern Ireland and a Chief Executive under the power-sharing arrangement. Under the Bill, however, two people must at all times act jointly, but what will happen when it is physically impossible for them to do so?
It seems as though the First Minister and his deputy are joined at the hip; I doubt whether they can even go to the water closet without each other. The system seems most unworkable. Is the Minister prepared to add provisions to the Bill to allow the First Minister some independence, so that, at some stage, he can be his own man rather than the prisoner of his deputy?

Mr. Andrew Mackinlay: I draw the attention of the Committee to amendment No. 99, which I tabled because I believed that the Bill contained a flaw: it does not provide for what would happen if—I hasten to add that I do not want this to happen—either the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister died in office. There is a problem about what would happen in what I call the interregnum between the expiry of the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister and the election of a successor. The Bill requires the Assembly to provide for the election of a replacement under its Standing Orders.
7.15 pm
If either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister dies, the other one no longer holds office and, I believe, the Ministry will fall or be in paralysis. Clause 18 states:
The executive power in Northern Ireland shall continue to be vested in Her Majesty…As respects transferred matters, the prerogative and other executive functions of Her Majesty shall be exercisable on Her Majesty's behalf by the First Minister and the deputy First Minister acting jointly.
I invite the Committee to consider that, if there is no First Minister or Deputy First Minister, power cannot be conveyed to subordinate Ministers, who, under clause 18(3), derive their functions from the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister acting jointly.
We must be sensible and provide for what would happen if the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) or their successors were suddenly to lose office—most likely by dying, although I hope that that does not happen. Northern Ireland needs a continuing Government; I do not have to remind the Committee that a lapse of Executive authority even for a few hours could be catastrophic. If either of the offices was vacant, it would clearly take some days for the vacancy to be filled under the Standing Orders of the Assembly.
Amendment No. 99 would allow the First Minister or the Deputy First Minister to continue in office for seven days—that would allow the Ministry to continue. I shall

be interested to hear whether my hon. Friend the Minister believes that my contention is legally flawed. I do not think it is; I think that the flaw in the Bill is the problem.
If my suggestion of extending the power of the surviving office holder by seven days does not commend itself to the Minister, I hope that an amendment will be tabled in another place to provide for a list of automatic succession so that, if a vacancy occurs, a named or designated postholder in the Ulster Unionist party or the SDLP would click in for long enough to allow the parties to regularise the appointment.
I do not want to labour the point, although the matter does need to be resolved in Committee. The Minister may say—as was said to me sotto voce a couple of nights ago—that the matter is provided for in the Assembly Standing Orders. With respect, I do not believe that it can be—no matter how those Standing Orders are drawn up, a vacancy cannot be filled instantly. The vacancy may occur while one of the office holders is on holiday in another part of the world. Nevertheless, at that moment, the other Minister falls and, I believe, the whole Ministry will fall or be paralysed, as its powers derive from the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
I hope that my amendment commends itself to the Minister. If not, I would like an undertaking that this void or flaw in the drafting of the Bill will be remedied in another place.

Mr. Trimble: The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) makes a good point. It is, as he says, very much a Committee point, and there is a certain sense of relief at getting down to some real Committee points in this Committee. It is a pity that we have the ghastly programme which does not give us time to look at all the Committee points in the Bill. However, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right in his contention.
The way in which the exercise of Executive functions is provided for in the Bill is a mess. All I can say in defence of the draftsmen is that the hon. Member for Thurrock should have seen the earlier draft—it was a worse mess. I do not know how many more drafts there will be, or how long it will be before we get something that is workable. However, what we have at the moment has clearly not been thought through, and some provision has to be made.
I am not sure that the absence of a Government is truly catastrophic. There is a lot to be said, in certain circumstances, for minimal government. There is a tendency for those in government to think that they should always be doing things.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Like giving themselves decent holidays.

Mr. Trimble: I am certainly thinking of the holidays which I hope to have within the next few days, and which I hope will be decent.
The seven-day continuation contained in the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock is inappropriate. If either the First Minister or Deputy First Minister resigns, we have a crisis. There might be a different situation if either stepped in front of the proverbial bus. Some of the police officers on duty here have reproved me for jumping off buses before they stop,


but that is by the way. If there is a resignation, we will have a crisis. It is optimistic to assume that that crisis will be resolved that quickly.
That is why our amendment contains the provision for the survivor, if I can use that term, to continue on a caretaker basis for a period. Using the term "caretaker" in the Bill may be inappropriate, and the draftsman may wish to reflect on that. The amendment suggests a period of three months, but that is just picking a term. That matches with the provisions in amendments that we have tabled which we shall debate later.
If there is a resignation—and therefore a crisis within the Administration which may or may not be resolvable—we could have a deadlock. Something will have to be done to resolve the deadlock, and the obvious thing is to provide for an election. However, we are dealing with a body with a fixed term. While there might be circumstances which might precipitate an election—or in which an election becomes inevitable—it should not be an easy option.
If it is an easy option, that undermines the concept of a fixed-term Assembly, and it becomes an Assembly with a maximum term of four years which can be terminated earlier than that. We need a period so that people are under some pressure to try to find a way of resolving the crisis. Amendments Nos. 141, 142 and 143 deal with that situation, but there is a need to provide for a vacancy and for Executive functions to be discharged on a better basis.
I have said to the Minister that the best way to do that is to follow what is done in the Government of Wales Bill, where Executive functions are vested in the Assembly as a whole. We then provide for those functions to be exercised in accordance with standing orders in the Assembly as a whole to reflect the fact that we will not have in the Northern Ireland Assembly a Cabinet or Executive bound by collective responsibility.
We are not analogous to Scotland. We will have a looser form of Administration and vesting the matter in the Assembly, subject to it being exercised in accordance with standing orders, preserves the safeguard for minorities which exists with the need for standing orders to be approved on a cross—community vote. We will deal with the problem flexibly, but we must still take account of the need to protect minorities.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) made some points in a characteristic fashion, and he had a substantial point. Repeatedly in the Bill, functions are conferred on the First Minister and Deputy First Minister jointly. As has been made clear, the Bill's purpose is to carry into effect the agreement, and it is important that we stick to the agreement. I defy anyone to find in the agreement any significant functions that are to be exercised in the way envisaged in the Bill. A couple of minor functions are to be exercised jointly by the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, but general governmental functions are not.
The hon. Member for Belfast, East made a useful point, but he chose the wrong clause on which to make it. The election of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister is the clearest point in the agreement. The agreement says that that is to be done jointly. It is consistent with that principle that the death or resignation of one should call into question the position of the other. We then have to

look at the practicalities of providing for the continuation of the Administration and for re-election. However, the basic principle—that, as the First Minister and Deputy First Minister have been elected jointly, the survivor cannot continue indefinitely if there is a death or resignation—is clearly right. That it is clear in the agreement.
I believe that my amendments deal with the practicalities better than the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Thurrock. However, the Minister may have a better way, and we wait to hear what he has to say. The practicalities have to be dealt with, but the general point raised by the hon. Member for Belfast, East must be addressed. As I said on Monday, it seems to me that, every time the draftsman encountered a difficulty, he decided to dump it on us. That is not appropriate. I would prefer to dump it on the Assembly as a whole.

Dr. Godman: I was struck by what the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) said about the two roles seeming to be "joined at the hip", and I listened carefully to the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), who referred to the First Minister in the Welsh Assembly.
I would like to ask Ministers a question. Paragraph 18 of strand 1 of the agreement says:
The duties of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will include, inter alia, dealing with and co-ordinating the work of the Executive Committee and the response of the Northern Ireland administration to external relationships.
The term "inter alia" can be used liberally.
Let us put away such terrible things as people falling under buses. What happens if the First Minister is absent from Northern Ireland? Can I assume that the Deputy First Minister takes on the role in his absence? If any emergency arises, would he have the right to deal with everyday matters and any critical matters that might arise?
The right hon. Member for Upper Bann mentioned the Welsh Assembly, but I wish to refer to the Scottish Parliament. Clauses 42 to 44 of the Scotland Bill provide for the appointment and term of office of the First Minister and the Ministers, and that is entirely different from what is proposed here.
The right hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Belfast, East have raised critical questions, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay). Can I assume that a deputy would deputise and take on the role of First Minister in his colleague's absence? It might be worth looking at the appropriate clauses in the Government of Wales Bill and clauses 42 to 44 of the Scotland Bill, which may provide the means by which those questions can be answered sensibly and democratically.

Mr. Öpik: First, I must echo the practical concerns about what would happen should one of the positions become vacant. The Northern Ireland Assembly is not comparable with the Welsh Assembly, and the difficulties are not the same. In the former, indivisibility is there for a purpose, and a sensible purpose at that. As the agreement is absolutely clear, we do not need to debate that matter. As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann elucidated, we are discussing a practical question and, far from decoupling the two positions, we want to maintain some continuity should one or other of the individuals disappear from the role.
7.30 pm
Can the Minister give us some assurance that continuity in the event of a vacancy will be considered during the summer, perhaps as a drafting amendment? One thing is sure: if a crisis leads to the resignation of the First Minister or Deputy First Minister for whatever reason, that crisis would be exacerbated if both roles became vacant at once. The intent of the amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay) is to prevent a crisis from deepening because of poor planning for the continuity of the two roles.

Mr. Robert McCartney: I shall be brief. Much of the difficulty arises because of the looseness of the terminology. To describe as First Minister and Deputy First Minister the roles designated to the two Executive officers is a misnomer. Clearly, the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) is in no sense the deputy of the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble). They are joint consuls, as in imperial Rome, each with the power to stop the other.

Mr. Trimble: Like Rome perhaps, but not imperial Rome.

Mr. McCartney: We will leave Caligula and Nero out of it for the moment and concentrate on the consuls rather than the emperor.

Mr. McNamara: And the hon. Gentleman is one of the vestal virgins.

Mr. McCartney: I do not think so. As the father of four children, even in a male sense I do not think that there is any justification for that remark.
The concept of a deputy is that, if the principal is, for any reason, unable to discharge his functions, the deputy will assume the executive role of the principal. In the Assembly, the deputy would immediately have to leave office should anything happen to his principal, and vice versa.
The terminology is indicative of the louche way in which the Bill has been drafted. It is meant to feed the Unionist electoral majority with the idea that, the leader of the largest party is in some way a First Minister and the leader of the nationalist Social Democratic and Labour party—the second largest party—is in some way a deputy. That is the image that the language is intended to project, which is completely out of kilter with the essence of the provisions.
We talk about introducing democracy, but there is no democracy as it is popularly understood in the arrangement. Such is the distrust, or mistrust, that, if one of the joint consuls is incommoded in any way—whether by falling under a bus, or becoming of unsound mind, memory or understanding—the whole thing is scuppered. It is unreal nonsense.

Mr. Trimble: I hope that what I am about to say is accurate and I am sure that I will be corrected if it is not, but I think that the hon. Gentleman will be relieved to know that there is no provision to remove either Minister on the basis of his being of unsound mind.

Mr. McCartney: I am prepared to accept the right hon. Gentleman's assurances, but the test may ultimately become objective rather than a subjective demonstration of any weakness of the mind.
The issue is that the language used in the Bill in no way reflects the reality of the situation. Some people would say that it is another manifestation of the Government's obsession with making form much more important than substance.

Mr. Paul Murphy: This has been an interesting debate and I shall deal with one of the least contentious points first. Hon. Members referred to the prerogative powers mentioned in clause 18, which are a tiny proportion of all the powers. Ministers will continue in office with full powers. In that case, prerogative powers merely encompass public holidays and a few other specialist powers.

Mr. Mackinlay: I hesitate to intervene, but although I think that I understand what prerogative powers are, clause 18(2) also mentions
other executive functions of Her Majesty",
and it would seem that everything and anything that a Minister in the Northern Ireland Assembly does is derived from that subsection. With the greatest respect, I hope that the Government will reflect on that.
I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister if I am wrong, but it seems to me that, if both the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister posts are vacant, Ministers will be denied the capacity to exercise their statutory functions, and there would be paralysis in the Administration. They might say, "That's only convention. We can skip over that." However, any actions that they took, or that were taken on their behalf, in the interregnum would then be subject to the vulnerability of challenge in the courts.

Mr. Murphy: The vast majority of Ministers' powers derive from statute and not from clause 18. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State will deal with the later clauses and may be able to elaborate on that. The points about vacancies are important, and I will deal with them in a moment.
On the more general aspects of the First and Deputy First Ministers, I must admit that it is not the most elegant of language, but that is what was decided in the talks and in the agreement and that is what people voted for. As for the concept of having a First Minister and a Deputy First Minister, to reflect the top parties' electoral mandate and success in the Assembly elections—effectively, the largest nationalist and the largest Unionist party as reflected in membership of the Assembly—that effectively means that co-operation and consensus between the two traditions in Northern Ireland are reflected in those offices. That was one of the great attractions of the whole agreement. Of course there were contentious issues, but I think that hon. Members who were involved in the referendum campaign will agree that that issue did not exercise people or cause controversy, because it is a good idea in itself.
Of course, the arrangement is nothing like a joint presidency. I know the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister well, and I do not have the slightest doubt that they will exercise their independence in many circumstances, but the idea of having those two Ministers was in the agreement, and I believe was supported by those who voted in the referendum.

Mr. Robert McCartney: The Minister has made constant reference to what people agreed to in the


referendum, but he knows well that the focus groups ordered by his Department produced some important information about the number of people who had read the agreement, the number who had read it completely and the number who had only skimmed through it. To suggest that every word of it was endorsed in the referendum is a flight from reality.

Mr. Murphy: The hon. and learned Gentleman would not disagree that, when people elected him to represent North Down in the House of Commons, they did not read his manifesto carefully. When they voted for him, they voted for what was in that manifesto, just as the referendum was based on what was in the agreement. The Government cannot construct a Bill based on an agreement on the assumption that people did not read it.
The concept of having a First and a Deputy First Minister representing the two largest parties—effectively, the largest Unionist and the largest nationalist party—was an attractive concept that people liked, and it was written into both the agreement and the Bill.

Mr. Peter Robinson: It was neither in the agreement nor in the Bill. Anyone can be nominated. Candidates do not have to be from the largest party of either designated tradition. Two Unionists could be nominated.

Mr. Murphy: Yes, of course, but that was not the reality, and everyone knew that it would not be. The agreement is based on co-operation between both traditions, and if that had not been the case, the referendum majority would not have been as big as it was.
There are areas in which the First and Deputy First Ministers must act jointly, according to the agreement, but other areas are not so significant. When we have further consultations here and in another place, we will be able to examine those areas carefully.
Some valid points have been made about vacancies, by my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Mackinlay), the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) and others. We need to have another look at that part of the clause, and in the summer I will consult the parties in both Northern Ireland and Westminster, with a view to adding some clarification in another place. I hope, as a consequence, that the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) will withdraw the amendment.

Mr. Peter Robinson: My purpose was to seek a list of those occasions when the First and Deputy First Ministers could act independently. I did not get one suggestion from the Minister as to any such occasion. I suppose that the only circumstance in which they could act independently would be if they were to take another ministerial post in the Executive, which of course they would be entitled to do. It is perfectly clear that the two of them must at all times act together. The amendment raised the issue and will let people see that we have, effectively, joint First Ministers in Northern Ireland, and that each is a prisoner of the other. On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 14 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5 agreed to.

Clause 15

NORTHERN IRELAND MINISTERS

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 144, in page 7, line 41, leave out from first 'the' to end of line 42 and insert 'Assembly'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 145, in page 8, leave out lines 1 to 3.
No. 178, in clause 16, page 9, line 13, leave out 'of the Assembly'.
No. 147, in clause 18, page 9, line 30, leave out from first 'the' to the end of line 34 and insert 'Assembly'.
No. 77, in clause 18, page 9, line 30, leave out
'and the deputy First Minister acting jointly'
and insert
'with the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross—community basis in accordance with section 4(5).'.
No. 78, in clause 18, page 9, line 32, leave out 'those Ministers so determine' and insert—
'the First Minister so determines, with the approval of the Assembly voting on a cross—community basis in accordance with section 4(5),'.
No. 149, in clause 22, page 10, line 38, after 'policy', insert
',the initiation of legislation, the approval of secondary legislation and such other matters as may be provided by Standing Orders'.
No. 184, in clause 40, page 21, line 24, leave out
'First Minister and Deputy First Minister acting jointly'
and insert
'Assembly'.

Mr. Trimble: The amendments give us the opportunity to continue the debate that was conducted under the previous group, as largely the same issues are involved.
The agreement contains some novel features, which are there to reflect the particular circumstances that exist in Northern Ireland. That is why we have the concept of both a First and a Deputy First Minister; there is symbolic importance in having two persons who are, by virtue of the arrangements in the agreement and in the Bill, closely related to each other.
There is no need for the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) to make such heavy weather of that. The same arrangements apply when coalitions exist: if there are two parties whose votes are necessary to provide an effective majority in an institution, the two party leaders are not necessarily in a very close relationship. In its essence, there is no great dissimilarity between such a situation and the situation provided for in the Bill.
My concern is that the Bill's draftsman has departed significantly from the agreement and given some precise functions to the First and Deputy First Ministers that are not given, or even hinted at, in the agreement. The agreement provides for them to be elected jointly, and that is clearly a joint function. It also provides that they are to preside over the meetings of the Executive Committee.
Paragraph 18 of strand 1 says:
The duties of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will include…dealing with and co-ordinating the work of the Executive Committee and the response of the Northern Ireland administration to external relationships.
Co-ordinating is a general function, rather than a precise executive function.
The only precise executive functions given in the agreement to the gentlemen in question is with regard to the civic forum in paragraph 34 and, under paragraph 2 of strand 2, with regard to making alternative arrangements for representation, although, by virtue of paragraphs 13 and 18, they have to co-ordinate general arrangements for representation with external institutions. Their role is symbolic and co-ordinating. I think that the draftsman has made a mistake in giving them so many precise executive functions.
The disadvantage is clearly shown by the matters covered in amendments Nos. 144 and 145, which deal with determining the number and functions of Northern Ireland Ministers. That point was covered in the Assembly's very first sitting, at the end of which it charged the First and Deputy First Ministers with a role: to consider the shape and structure of future administration and the arrangements to be made for both the British-Irish council and the north-south ministerial council. There are certain matters that have to be dealt with in accordance with the agreement.

Rev. Ian Paisley: rose—

Mr. Robert McCartney: rose—

Mr. Trimble: I shall choose the hon. and learned Member for North Down (Mr. McCartney).

Mr. McCartney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. As I understand it, he objects to the fact that certain functions have been given to him that were not spelled out in the agreement, but is not the real charge that the function that the Assembly gave the two Ministers was not the Assembly's choice but the result of a fixed agenda presented to it by the Secretary of State? The Assembly did not choose what to do: it was told what to do.

Mr. Trimble: The Assembly chose to do it when the Assembly passed the necessary resolution. The agenda was drawn up by the Secretary of State, but she did it after consultation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: With whom?

Mr. McCartney: indicated dissent.

Mr. Trimble: I cannot say. The Secretary of State consulted me, and I am sure that she consulted other people. The agenda did not appear out of the blue, but that is a peripheral issue.
At the end of its first sitting, the Assembly passed a resolution charging the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister with making studies, considering matters including the shape of the future Northern Ireland Administration, the British-Irish council and the north-south ministerial council, and bringing proposals to

the Assembly, as we hope to do in the autumn. The Assembly will be able to debate those proposals, to amend them or to tell us to go back and think again. It may decide to ask for someone else's proposals. The decision rests with the Assembly, and the First Minister and Deputy First Minister will merely offer proposals.
The practical reality underlying that is that the Assembly requires an effective majority if it is to function. As matters stand, and as we see them in the future, that majority will be provided by a form of coalition between the Social Democratic and Labour party and the Ulster Unionist party. If proposals to the Assembly are approved by the leadership of those two parties, it is likely that the Assembly will endorse them. The Assembly can also endorse proposals on a cross-community basis, as cross-community voting can be invoked in particular circumstances. The right way to proceed is to focus on the Assembly, and to create an effective majority in the Assembly, which will make us work closely together.
Clause 15 is the wrong way round. It says that the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister are to act together but without the Assembly to make a determination that the Assembly will have to approve. That puts the cart before the horse, suggesting that power rests essentially with the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister. Their decision may be vetoed by the Assembly, but decisions will not be taken properly. The same point arises in a different context in relation to amendment No. 147.
The right way to proceed is to give the power to make a determination to the Assembly, with its ability to take decisions on a cross-community basis when that is necessary. To give too many precise functions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will tend to lead to a joint presidency, and that was not the intention of the agreement. We need the draftsman to rethink the clause to bring it closer to the agreement.

Dr. Godman: Clause 15 allows the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister jointly to determine the number of Ministers and their functions. Presumably, their determination will then be presented to the Assembly, which is a coherent and realistic approach. That is in effect Cabinet government, under a Prime Minister, and I expect the Scottish Parliament to work that way. The First Minister in Scotland may head a coalition Government, and he will have to negotiate who his Ministers are to be and what their functions will be before he presents his decision to the Scottish Parliament. Surely the same holds true for the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Mr. Trimble: There is a clear difference between arrangements for Northern Ireland and Scotland. The Scottish arrangements are based on normal British parliamentary practice, so Scotland can have normal Cabinet government. If no one wins an overall majority, there may have to be a coalition, but there will basically be a normal British parliamentary system. That is not the case in Northern Ireland. The d'Hondt formula and the principle of proportionality will mean that there will not be a Cabinet. There will be an Executive, but it will not operate as a Cabinet.
I thought that the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) was going to refer to the conflict between clauses 15 and 17. I have not tabled any


amendments on that, not because I approve of it, but because my time is limited. Clause 15, even with my amendment, provides that the functions to be exercised by Ministers are to be determined by the First and Deputy First Ministers. That offers them the temptation to rig the d'Hondt formula's operation by moving functions between Departments so that all the politically sexy functions are in the Departments that they obtain. Perhaps they might even be tempted to manipulate the total number of Departments. Far be it from me to suggest that such ideas will be at the forefront of their minds, but they are exposed to that temptation.
That runs counter to clause 17, however, as it states:
the Northern Ireland departments existing on the appointed day shall be the Northern Ireland departments for the purposes of this Act.
(2) Provision may be made by Act of the Assembly for establishing new Northern Ireland departments".
There is an existing power under subordinate legislation for the transfer of functions from one Department to another. That is not being abolished, and there is a consequent conflict between clauses 15 and the existing body of law.
My main point is that functions should be determined by the Assembly. I am not moving away from the concept of partnership arrangements in saying that it would be a mistake to give those functions to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister.
I am puzzled about why amendment No. 149 is grouped with amendment No. 144, because it raises quite different issues. It deals with the functions of committees as provided for in clause 22. The draftsman has not taken account of all the functions given to committees in the agreement, which are listed in paragraph 9. The draftsman could reconsider the clause to bring it into conformity with the agreement.

8 pm

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tony Worthington): It is interesting to hear the views of the First Minister designate, the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble), in respect of the exercise of these powers. He is right to say that the agreement, in the remarkable time in which it did what it did, could not possibly have solved all the problems that relate to any Bill.
What we have been trying to do is to interpret the spirit of the agreement. In respect of the setting up of the Departments, we referred the matter to the First Minister and the Deputy First Minister, which is in fact what the Assembly did. That seemed to us to be a sensible way of proceeding.
The right hon. Gentleman says that the Assembly should do it, but the Assembly cannot do it en masse; it would then have to refer the matter to someone or to some organisation to accomplish that end. That is what has occurred. We are quite willing to look again at the issue, but that seems to be the sensible way to deal with the bringing into existence of the Assembly, its Ministers and its Committees. However, we shall reconsider the matter and see whether there is an alternative way to proceed.
I should clarify a point raised several times during this debate and the previous one, which is the question of prerogative powers. I assure hon. Members that the

prerogative powers referred to are extremely limited, covering matters such as the organisation of the civil service, public holidays, action in civil emergencies, the honours list and so on. They sound like an enormous matter, but the powers are in fact marginal to the affairs of the Assembly. The bulk of the power that people will have is statutory power, which will go with Ministers in the carrying out of their duties.
To clarify another point that has been raised, so that it does not dominate our discussions later, I should explain the reference to "other executive functions". Again, that sounds like a major part of the work of the Assembly and of Ministers. It refers to the powers that the Government or a Department can exercise in the same way as a normal citizen; the best example of that would be the power to make contracts. However, the great bulk of the Assembly's powers will be statutory.
With the assurance that we shall look again at how we go about the business of setting up the Committees and the functions of the Assembly, I ask the right hon. Member for Upper Bann to ask leave to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Trimble: I am glad to hear that the Minister will look again at the matter. I trust that, in doing so, he will consult me and others who are directly involved. I realise that the Bill had to be drafted very quickly and that that limited the opportunity for consultation beforehand, but, had we been given the opportunity, we should have been very happy to elucidate for the Minister the real meaning of the agreement. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 163, in page 8, line 31, at end insert—
'(9A) If the number of seats in the Assembly which are held by members of one or more political party, reduce or increase, for any reason to such an extent that it alters the number of Ministerial offices entitled to be held by a party, then the procedure set out in subsections (4) to (9) shall be reapplied.'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 164 in page 9, line 12, at end add—
'(16) In this section the number of seats in the Assembly which are held by the political party is determined by calculating the number of members designated as being in membership of that party when signing the Assembly register and a member of the Assembly may alter his party designation in the Assembly register.'.

Mr. Robinson: Again, the amendment is designed to give the Government an opportunity to clarify their thinking and the intention of the legislation in respect of possible changes in the numerical strength of political parties in the Assembly. Clearly, it can take only a few Members to require a change in the number of ministerial posts to which a political party is entitled. For example, a significant transformation could be achieved by a couple of extra DUP Members and the fall-off of a couple of SDLP Members—perhaps some SDLP Members will join the DUP.

Mr. McGrady: Me?

Mr. Robinson: Who knows? The invitation is there for the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady).
There is a clear possibility that a small shift in numbers would entitle a political party to an additional ministerial post, or require a political party to lose a ministerial post. The legislation, on the face of it, does not appear to deal with that eventuality. It is possible that the Minister will tell me that Standing Orders could deal with the issue, but I think that it is so important that it is necessary for it to be in the Bill, so that, expressly, if the number of seats in the Assembly held by a political party increased or decreased to the extent that it should cause a change in ministerial numbers, the formula outlined in the Bill in subsections (4) to (9) would be reapplied.
The second amendment, No. 164, deals with the determination of who is a member of a political party. Currently, that is self-evident: when Members went into the Assembly, they were asked to sign a register, one of the columns of which indicated the political party to which they belong. However, nowhere in the legislation does it say that that is the determining factor in deciding whether somebody is or is not a member of a political party; nor does the Bill say what happens if a person resigns from a political party. If a person resigns from a political party, does the party still hold to the number that it had when that person was elected as a member of that party? The Bill is silent on all those matters.
I have no doubt that, within four or five years, such problems will arise. It is proper that we face up to them now and amend the Bill to allow them to be dealt with in an efficient and effective manner.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the Minister knows that, when we were registering, there was some controversy in respect of the Women's Coalition, whose members wanted to be one thing one day, something else the next day, and something else the day after that. There was a ruling against that by the pro tem Presiding Officer, the person appointed by the Secretary of State. They thought that they could be nationalists when they wanted to be nationalists to get the consensus vote; Unionists when they wanted to be Unionists to get the Unionist vote; and nothing when they wanted to be what they really were. That was what took place.

Mrs. Fyfe: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: No. I am simply saying that that is what the members of the Women's Coalition told us they were during the talks. They said that they were nothing—not Unionist, not nationalist, just themselves. That is what they wanted to be sometimes, but when it suited their voting purposes, they wanted to be Unionists or nationalists. That was not permitted after the ruling from the chair, but what is going to happen in future when people want to change party?
What happens then, and when voting takes place? What happens if, as my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) says, Members resign from one party and join another? It could change even the Executive if two Members who had resigned from one party joined another party that needed only two more Members to get a third or a fourth seat on the Executive. What would happen then? I think that the Minister needs to be clear when he replies, and to tell us his thinking on those issues. Will he deal with those matters in the Bill?
I am glad that the House is now learning that the Bill cannot be a replica of the agreement. We have heard Members argue strongly today that the Bill can include

nothing except what is in the agreement, but the Minister admitted that it would have to contain points that were not in the agreement.

Mr. Worthington: The hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) must not take my appearance at the Dispatch Box as evidence of a new reasonableness.
We ask hon. Members to resist the amendments but to acknowledge that there is an issue to be considered. It is important, as we work through the implications of the d'Hondt procedure, that we think of all possible consequences. In the case that has just been mentioned, it would be wrong to deny Members the opportunity to cross the Floor. In any democracy, there are circumstances in which people wish to reclassify themselves, and it would be wrong for us to state in legislation that a person who was elected with a particular designation had to keep it for ever. We therefore resist the thinking behind the amendment.
I pay tribute to the people who have drafted the Bill. What has happened over the past few months is simply remarkable. I think of my background as a Member of Parliament for a Scottish constituency and how we have been talking about devolution all my adult political life. Devolution will happen in Scotland—there will be an election next May and the Parliament will sit a year later. We seek, in this Bill, to set up an Assembly in Northern Ireland by early next year. What we are achieving is remarkable.
I return to d'Hondt and the difficulties that we shall have to tackle later in the proceedings on the Bill which are linked to the points made by the hon. Members for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) and for North Antrim. What should happen if parties are excluded from the Parliament? Should we then return to the d'Hondt principles? What will happen when parties amalgamate? Again, there may be a need for recalculations.

Dr. Godman: I can understand the object of the amendment, but surely, if the legislation to set up a finely balanced Assembly cannot comfortably accommodate people who wish to transfer from one party to another, an alternative democratic view is that such Members should have the honour to resign and cause a by-election.

Mr. McNamara: My point follows that of my hon. Friend, with whom I disagree. The nature of the elections, which are based on a proportional system for the constituencies, means that communities within constituencies are represented. Therefore, if Members cross the Floor or change their position, they deny that community element the representation that it had within the complicated community and constituency-based system. That brings us to the question whether there should be a by-election at all or whether a person should, in those circumstances, resign and be replaced by another party member. There is a world of difference between an Assembly elected for a fixed period and proportional representation, and what happens in this House, where Governments can change if a vote of confidence is lost. That will never happen under the present Administration, I am happy to say.

Mr. Worthington: In his elegant way, my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) has demonstrated the complexities that lie behind the


amendment. Over the summer months, we need to work out the circumstances in which there would need to be a rerun of the d'Hondt principles. I am not committing myself to what those circumstances might be, but as we consider the Bill, it becomes clear that we need further to explore this matter. I ask the hon. Member for Belfast, East not to press his amendment, and I assure him that we recognise that the Bill needs further work in that respect.

Mr. Robinson: I welcome the Minister's remarks. There was confusion in the debate between party affiliation and community designation. We are dealing with party affiliation in the formula for allocating ministerial posts. The hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) referred to the possibility of a community being robbed of one of its Members if he or she were to cross the Floor. It is unlikely that a Member would cross from the nationalist community to the Unionist or vice versa in the middle of an Assembly term, but it is theoretically possible.
The difficulty in sustaining the hon. Gentleman's argument is that we were not required, or indeed entitled, to state our community designation at the time of the election. I argued that every person who stood should then state their community designation so that people knew what that would be when Members entered the Assembly and could vote accordingly.

Mr. McNamara: How Jesuitical the hon. Gentleman is regarding the Alliance party. A Member may not necessarily cross the Floor from nationalist to Unionist or vice versa. There is the question of the separate non-aligned groups—if I may use that United Nations term—some of whose Members might join other organisations.

Mr. Robinson: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but under the Bill, a move does not have the same effect if Members remain within the same community designation. Most of the voting in the Assembly will be based on community designation, so if Members remain in the same community designation, it does not matter which group they sit with. The impact of changing from one political party to another principally has an effect on the number of ministerial posts that that party will have.
The position is not unlike that in this House. The hon. Member for Hull, North has colleagues who were elected as something other than Labour Members. It is not uncommon for Members of the House to change their affiliation without going to the electorate for a ballot.

Mr. McNamara: I take the hon. Gentleman's point about community designation, but there would be a problem if a Member moved from the Alliance party and declared himself nationalist or Unionist, depending on the particular brand of Unionism to which he became affiliated and how that affected the party balance under the d'Hondt system. The problem would still arise in that case.

Mr. Robinson: The hon. Gentleman would have a point if there was something to stop Members changing

their community designation tomorrow if they so wished. As it is, they can go into the Assembly today and change their community designation. There is nothing to stop them.
It is entirely wrong that people can change their community designation overnight just for the sake of the voting impact that it may have in the Assembly. It makes a farce of the way in which the Assembly operates. However, until such time as community designation is tied down, the hon. Member for Hull, North does not really have a point, because the Alliance party members could change that anyway.

Mr. McNamara: We are not disagreeing.

Mr. Robinson: In that case, let us end the debate very quickly on that, by way of concord.
I am pleased that the Minister has undertaken to look at the matter again. In terms of the practical operation of the Assembly, it is essential that we look at it again. I shall examine the Government's response closely when we have it. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16

THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Peter Robinson: I beg to move amendment No. 76, in clause 16, page 9, line 16, leave out 'chairmen' and insert 'chairman and deputy chairman'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 9, in clause 16, page 9, line 19, at end add—
'(4) Ministers of the Crown shall not serve on the Executive Committee'.

Mr. Robinson: I am slightly surprised that amendment No. 76 was chosen for debate, because it very much followed on from our earlier debate about the Siamese twins in the First Minister and Deputy First Minister. Strangely, instead of being Chairman and Deputy Chairman, they become joint Chairmen. I wonder why we have that change in terminology. Earlier the Government were trying to bluff people into believing that we had a First Minister and a deputy, but the reality seems to emerge when they are chairing meetings of the Executive Committee as joint Chairmen. Will the Minister help us to understand how two Chairmen will preside over a meeting? Surely, if they are First Minister and Deputy First Minister, they should be Chairman and Deputy Chairman.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: I should like to turn the Committee's attention to amendment No. 9, standing in the names of my right hon. and hon. Friends, which says that
Ministers of the Crown shall not serve on the Executive Committee".
The issue is something of a hardy perennial. It was under discussion in the House only yesterday, in the context of the Government of Wales Bill and the ambition, in that


case, of the Secretary of State to fulfil, for a limited time, the roles of Minister of the Crown and Assembly First Secretary.
In the view of the Official Opposition, there is a clear constitutional issue, which applies as much to the position in Northern Ireland as it does to that in Wales and that in Scotland. The starting point is simple—the ministerial guidelines, of which the code for 1997 was published in July. The first guideline reads:
Ministers must uphold the principle of collective responsibility.
To that is joined the second guideline:
Ministers have a duty to Parliament to account and be held to account for the policies, decisions and actions of their departments and next step agencies.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has heard the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) say that the Executive Committee is not a Cabinet. Surely the hon. Gentleman is quoting guidelines for Cabinet responsibility—that Ministers must agree, and that they must move in unison. Surely that is a Cabinet structure.

Mr. Grieve: I am quoting from the rules relating to United Kingdom Ministers. As the hon. Gentleman says, there are also guidelines which are set out in the Bill, and in the Belfast agreement, relating to Ministers in the Northern Ireland Assembly. In particular, schedule 5 of the Bill provides that it is the duty of a Minister
to support, and act in accordance with, all decisions of the Executive Committee and Assembly".
Of course, in the Northern Ireland connection, the matter goes further, because in Committee today we have heard something about the curious relationship between the First Minister and his deputy. I do not use the word "curious" in a pejorative sense. I accept that we are putting in place a constitutional creation, but it imposes on the two people mutual responsibilities—and, indeed, loyalties—which are explicit, or at least implicit, in the context of the Bill.
The question arises—I accept that it is a hypothetical question at the moment—how could those two sets of guidelines, one for Northern Ireland and one for Ministers in the United Kingdom, be reconcilable with the possibility of a United Kingdom Minister holding a place on the Northern Ireland Executive, or vice versa? The view of the official Opposition is that the two are completely incompatible.
We could end up with extraordinary anomalies. How could a Minister observe collective responsibility to both bodies? We could also have the extraordinary situation of a Minister ending up supervising his own actions because, under clause 21(3)(a) of the Bill, it is possible for a Member of the Northern Ireland Executive Committee to act as the agent for a Minister of the Crown of the United Kingdom. We could therefore have the very bizarre situation of a Minister of the United Kingdom giving a delegated agency task to himself in another guise.
This may appear to be somewhat esoteric, but it is not. I shall explain to the Minister and the Committee why I do not believe that it is. There is already ample evidence that, where one has devolved administrative structures—let alone devolved structures relating to assemblies and government—conflicts can arise.
I have to tell the Minister that, only a very few years ago, I was sent up by a Government Department to a port on the north-east coast of England to pick up the debris of a prosecution that had been brought by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, England, against a Scottish trawlerman. In the course of the proceedings, it had become apparent that the directives under which he was acting, which had been placed upon him by the Scottish branch of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, differed markedly from those that were being operated in the port in Lincolnshire where he had landed his catch.
The result was a disaster for the Government Department that had brought the prosecution—perhaps rightly so, because it was castigated for the inconsistencies that existed. The fact remained that, because there was, at least, a doctrine of collective responsibility, the fall-out—to which I was not privy because I was there only in the role of advocate—could at least be contained within the Ministry, in the relations between the Scottish Minister, holding his collective responsibility and his responsibility to the House, and the English Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, with his responsibilities in relation to his own Department.
Even with the limited—but important—powers that will be devolved under the Bill, a fisherman coming out of Ardglass, fishing in the Irish sea and landing his catch at Fleetwood might easily encounter an identical problem if the rules were interpreted differently in Northern Ireland and in England. In those circumstances, it would be the clear duty of those holding Executive office in Northern Ireland and those who were Ministers of the Crown of the United Kingdom to resolve that difficulty; and its resolution, in terms of collective responsibility, is incompatible with one person operating in both bodies at once.
When the issue was discussed in the House of Lords, in the Welsh context, it was suggested that there was no reason why the Bill should not go ahead, because, if the Prime Minister wanted to appoint as a Minister of the Crown a person who happened to be a Member of the Welsh Assembly, he should not be fettered from doing so, and vice versa. However, it is an anomaly which creates its own problems from the moment that it comes into being. The Committee should—and I hope that the Minister will—have the courage to accept that, in this context, and especially in the Northern Ireland context in view of the unusual relationships that will exist within the structure of the Northern Ireland Assembly, that anomaly should be prevented from the outset.

Mr. Worthington: Amendment No. 76, which is in the name of the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), follows a familiar theme of the Ulster Democratic Unionist party. Basically, we are simply following the agreement. Strand 1 of the agreement states:
The Ministers will constitute an Executive Committee, which will be convened, and presided over, by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
We feel that this clause and the way in which it is drafted is consistent with the agreement's intentions. All we are doing is honouring the agreement. I do not want to go any further, because I would simply repeat what has been said many times tonight.
8.30 pm
Similarly, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) has recognised, this other issue is a hardy perennial that has come up over and again during the devolutionary year. I do not want to repeat points that were made in debates on the Scotland and Government of Wales Bills, but we take the same position on this as on those other Bills.
If the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) were to take up a ministerial post, we would not want to exclude him from the Executive Committee, but the argument of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield is even more exotic than anything else that has come out tonight. In fact, it is not a hardy perennial, but the most tropical and fragile of plants. We take the same position on this as on the devolutionary Bills on Scotland and Wales. We do not think that we should deal with what are fanciful situations that will not occur.
Northern Ireland Ministers must be Members of the Assembly. It is unlikely—I put it no more strongly—that Members of the Assembly will be Ministers of the Crown, but we do not feel that it is necessary to block that possibility.

Mr. Peter Robinson: I am at a loss to understand the reasoning of the Minister, who refers to paragraph 17 of the agreement to support his contention that there should be joint chairmen. Paragraph 17 says:
The Ministers will constitute an Executive Committee, which will be convened, and presided over, by the First Minister and Deputy First Minister.
Clearly, it does not say that they should act jointly, act together or act at the one time. There is no reason to believe that they have to be either joint chairmen or that they have to act together at the same moment in chairing a meeting. The Minister is reading too much into the agreement. Nothing in the agreement is inconsistent with the amendment that has been tabled in my name.
I ask the Minister to look at the matter again. I think that he has gone beyond the agreement unnecessarily and I hope that he will report back at a later stage. In the meantime, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 17 to 19 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 20

INTERNATIONAL OBLIGATIONS

Mr. Trimble: I beg to move amendment No. 148, in clause 20, page 10, leave out lines 12 to 15.
This is, I hope, quite a small point. The aim of the amendment is to elucidate the meaning and situations that the Government have in mind with regard to this clause.
The clause gives the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a power unilaterally to revoke legislation that is made by a Northern Ireland Department of the Northern Ireland Assembly. It gives that power to the Secretary of State in two situations. I find one acceptable—the one in which the legislative enactment in Northern Ireland contains a provision that is incompatible with the United Kingdom's international obligations.
However, I have difficulty in understanding the second provision. It gives the Secretary of State power to revoke legislation that is enacted by the Northern Ireland Assembly and that the Secretary of State considers
would have an adverse effect
on other legislation as it applies to excepted matters.
I should like the Minister to explain precisely what is meant by "an adverse effect". In what circumstances is there likely to be a situation that would justify the Secretary of State, in a remarkable action, unilaterally revoking the legislation of another body? That should be done only where there is clearly good reason for so doing. I am concerned about the apparent breadth of that phrase "adverse effect".

Mr. Worthington: As the right hon. Member for Upper Bann (Mr. Trimble) will know, we have three categories of legislation: excepted legislation, transferred legislation and referred legislation. In some circumstances, the Secretary of State may also give permission for the Assembly to legislate on areas that have been reserved. Again, we will have to look at this issue, but the thought here is that there may be circumstances in which legislation passed by the Assembly under its transferred powers has an impact on the Secretary of State's reserved powers or under the excepted powers.
Here is an example that has been given to me. The Assembly might introduce legislation on road transport, which might have an impact on the activities of the security forces. We are not talking here of conflict. We are talking just about the interface between different sorts of legislation and different sorts of powers.
This issue is still being visited under clause 54 of the Scotland Bill; it is clear that we need to be clearer about what is the relationship between different sorts of powers. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to withdraw his amendment, because we will need to revisit the issue at a later stage to clarify the relationships between those three sorts of powers, and to ensure that there is compatibility between those powers and clarity between the different Assemblies and Parliaments.

Mr. Trimble: I am glad that the Minister is thinking of looking again at the matter to achieve some clarity. That is precisely what I was seeking. I hope that we will have uniformity with the equivalent arrangements in Scotland, which, I regret to say, I have not had the opportunity to study, but I will endeavour to do so. On that basis, I am happy to withdraw the amendment, and I beg to ask leave to do so.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21

AGENCY ARRANGEMENTS BETWEEN UK AND NI DEPARTMENTS

Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in clause 21, page 10, line 31, at end add—
'(5) Arrangements under this section between the Government of the United Kingdom and a Northern Ireland department shall be known as concordats.


(6) The Government of the United Kingdom shall not enter into a concordat unless a draft of the concordat has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(7) Northern Ireland departments shall not enter into a concordat unless a draft of the concordat has been approved by the Assembly, by such procedure as standing orders may determine.'.
This is a probing amendment, but it seeks some answers to another hardy perennial topic that arose in relation to the devolution debates on Scotland and Wales. It is concerned with concordats. It is no criticism of the Government—I am trying to be fair—to say that, because of the way in which the Bill has been introduced, we have not had a White Paper in the accepted sense. Therefore, we have not had any detail about the arrangements that will be arrived at for dealing with devolved matters between the United Kingdom civil service and the Northern Ireland civil service.
In the two White Papers on Wales and Scotland, we were appraised of the existence of the delightful new concept called the concordat. The concordat is extremely nebulous, because it is not a legally binding agreement. It is usually signed by officials, and it deals with administrative co-operation and the exchange of information. Some concordats may not even be published if they touch on confidential matters which it is not thought to be in the public interest to disclose.
There is nothing in the Belfast agreement about concordats. Indeed, the agreement is, inevitably, short on the detail of how the devolved Assembly and the relationships in devolved Government will be made to work. Unfortunately, it is perhaps an inevitable feature of the discussion of this Bill—the Under-Secretary and the Minister of State have accepted this—that, because we have been so concerned with certain key issues relating to deeply held political convictions, we are in danger of not providing proper scrutiny of the detail on which, ultimately, the legislation is just as likely to trip up and founder as on the grand perspective.
I should like to ask the Under-Secretary what is being considered in clause 21 as it stands. I have the explanatory memorandum which deals with agency arrangements—I accept that agency arrangements and concordats may not be one and the same thing. Certainly, agency arrangements would seem to imply that there will be arrangements for the discharge of functions in Northern Ireland by the Northern Ireland civil service and Ministers on behalf of United Kingdom Ministers or the United Kingdom civil service.
If that is all there is on this topic in the Northern Ireland Bill, where are concordats to be raised and dealt with? I shall be surprised if the Under-Secretary, when replying to this amendment, says that there will not be concordats. It seems inherent in the way in which devolved government works that concordats there will be.
I have in front of me the document placed in the House on Thursday 26 February 1998 relating to the operation of concordats in Scotland—a similar document was placed in the Library in relation to Wales. Is it the Government's intention to do likewise in relation to concordats for Northern Ireland? If there are to be concordats, that raises an important issue that will need to be debated at some point during the passage of the Bill, because the principle of concordats raises enormously difficult problems about accountability.
There is a suspicion—the suspicion grew as I considered this matter during the passage of the Scotland Bill—that concordats were a mechanism for the exercise

of control from the centre over the peripheral parts of the United Kingdom to which devolution was to be granted. The concordats were to be the facilitators for exchanges between civil services which might otherwise have divided loyalties as to who were their masters. It appeared to be a way of circumventing that which had no statutory basis whatsoever.
I am mindful that this is a probing amendment, and that the question of agency arrangements in clause 21 may not be the same as concordats. However, I hope that, during the debate, the Under-Secretary can at least enlighten us a little further on how the system will operate and what concordats will be brought into being to govern the relationship between the United Kingdom civil service and that part of it which will be operating solely on behalf of the Northern Ireland Assembly.

Dr. Godman: I will be brief. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) had the grace to say that this was a probing amendment. It seeks to give a legal basis to the term "concordat", which is a concept that the hon. Gentleman described as nebulous.
Of course, in all sorts of areas, arrangements will have to be made, not just between Belfast and London, but between Cardiff and London and Edinburgh and London, and, indeed, between all four locations. Fisheries are an example of an area where joint decisions have had to be made.

Mr. McNamara: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not want to underplay his case. With the Council of the Isles, we will have Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man to consider.

Dr. Godman: I know my hon. Friend of old. He has a vice—that is what it is—of anticipating what I am about to say. I was about to come on to the Council of the Isles.
I believe, as does my honourable and equally old Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Mr. Browne), that the Council of the Isles may well have to examine the arrangements for what the hon. Member for Beaconsfield called concordats. My hon. Friends will not be surprised to hear me using the fisheries issue as an example. I promise not to dwell on that for long, but you will not allow me to anyway, Sir Alan.
The issue of agreements is extremely important. It may be that the agreements entered into by the various assemblies and parliaments may one day require legal underpinning, but not by the nebulous idea raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.

Mr. Grieve: rose—

Dr. Godman: If I may just continue.
Under the clause as it now stands, perhaps arrangements established between the United Kingdom and a Northern Ireland department as described in the clause will be examined at meetings of the Council of the Isles or at meetings of officials, as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield suggested en passant.

Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman will be aware from his detailed participation in the Scotland Bill that this


matter caused considerable concern. The Opposition took the view that, if there were to be concordats, they should be subject to affirmative resolution, or at least approval by the House and by the Scottish Parliament. We believed that to be necessary if they were to be the underpinning arrangements for administrative contact to smooth the wheels and machinery of the operations of state. That was in a Scottish context.
In the Northern Ireland context, we do not know whether there are to be any concordats, because no one has told us. However, I would be surprised if there were not to be concordats. If there are to be concordats, we would repeat our view that they should be subject to affirmative resolution by the Northern Ireland Assembly and this Parliament. That is how we approach the matter, because we are constitutionalists on this—

The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are in Committee, and that is a very long intervention.

Mr. Grieve: I leave it to the hon. Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) to reply.

Dr. Godman: Thank you for rescuing me, Sir Alan.
The very helpful notes on clauses points out that clause 21 provides for
agency arrangements to be between UK Ministers of the Crown and Government Departments, on the one hand, and Northern Ireland Ministers and Departments, on the other, so that either can discharge the functions of the other.
Such provision is precisely what we debated in our proceedings on the Scotland Bill—which the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) participated in and attended assiduously.
There will have to be agency arrangements between Departments in Belfast and those in London. However, the matter is more complicated than that, as some arrangements will include also the Cardiff Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. That is why I gave the example of fisheries. As we live in island communities, various arrangements may be required, and I should have thought that no self-respecting Member of this Parliament, the Welsh Assembly or the Scottish Parliament would allow arrangements to go unchecked.
Clearly, democratic checks and balances of the arrangements will be developed over the years, in Belfast, Cardiff and Scotland, and in this place. There is therefore no need for amendment No. 13. Fortunately, the hon. Member for Beaconsfield described it as a probing amendment.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Is it not true that, even in this place, we are concerned occasionally when Ministers inform us of an action after it is has been taken? Would it not be better if Ministers had the approval of the Assembly or of this place before taking some actions? We can do very little about something once it is done.

Dr. Godman: For many years, the hon. Gentleman and I sat almost side by side on the Opposition Benches, and suffered from the previous Government the type of conduct that he describes. I should hope that matters will

be done much differently by the new Administration, although he may be a little more cynical about that than I am.
Clause 21 allows four types of arrangements, and the Assembly partner may be dominant in some of them. I should think that Scotland would have a bigger role to play than Northern Ireland, or—dare I say it—London, in arrangements on fisheries, for example.
As amendment No. 13 is a probing amendment, and as the concordat—as the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said in his graceful way—is a nebulous concept, we should stick with clause 21 as it is.

Mr. William Ross: It seems that clause 21 is really just repeating arrangements that existed between the old Stormont Parliament and United Kingdom Parliament on matters such as various national standards, social security, health and agriculture. The question is, how will the chain of command operate? Given that Parliament is supreme and retains its right to make laws, I begin to wonder what need there is for agency status.
Surely the United Kingdom civil service will still operate, at least to some extent, in Northern Ireland, and therefore will fall directly under the control of the responsible Minister in the national Parliament. Therefore, what will the relationship be between those civil servants and the Minister with responsibility for that particular element of Government service in Northern Ireland—or in Scotland or in Wales? To whom will those civil servants be responsible—to the immediately responsible Minister or to the United Kingdom Minister? If it is to the responsible Minister, will he be responsible to the United Kingdom Minister?
The arrangements will operate not only in one or two little corners but, presumably, in all social security matters and in many health matters, in health standards and in the training of medical staff. They will operate also in agriculture—at which point we run into the problem of United Kingdom agricultural policies that are, under the common agricultural policy, run in conjunction with European Community agricultural policies. If we are not clear about how the arrangements will operate in the months and years ahead, I think that we will get into an awful lot of very complicated difficulties. We will have to deal also with the whole matter of European money, which goes far beyond the CAP issues that I mentioned.
The Minister owes us a fairly full explanation of how the arrangements will operate. It is not good enough to say, "We're going to sort the matter out over the next few months." They have not only to sort the matter out now, but be able to tell us about it.
I am somewhat puzzled about the provision on the Post Office, which I thought was a national institution. I suppose that we will be able to continue using the Post Office for distribution of pensions and social security benefits. Perhaps that was the intention. However, if so, surely the Post Office in Northern Ireland would be acting as an agency of the United Kingdom Government, rather than as an agent of the Northern Ireland Administration?
Those are a few thoughts on the tip of a very large iceberg. The Committee and the people of Northern Ireland deserve a very full explanation of the matter.


Perhaps we do not really need such an agency system. Perhaps it would be far better if many of those matters were dealt with directly by this place.

Mr. Worthington: I have reached my advanced age without bothering with concordats, and I do not think that, because of this amendment, I should change my life style now. The Opposition are trying to complicate the relatively simple but—I agree with the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross)—important issue of relationships, which will have to be worked out, between this Parliament and the Assembly. In all fairness, I cannot give the hon. Gentleman all the answers now, but hope that I will be able to deal with the points that he raised.
There are relationships between the Northern Ireland Office, the Northern Ireland civil service and bodies in Great Britain. I can give some examples of how relationships will in future have to be worked out. The lottery, for example, will remain a United Kingdom function. However, some aspects of the lottery are currently dealt with by Northern Ireland institutions—so that, in sports and arts matters, the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Sports Council for Northern Ireland administer the lottery on behalf of the United Kingdom lottery.
I see no reason to change that relationship. It seems perfectly sensible to maintain it, although there will have to be an agreement on that. Although the Northern Ireland Assembly will have responsibility for administering aspects of the lottery in relation to the Sports Council and the Arts Council in Northern Ireland, the responsibility for the administration of the lottery will remain with the UK Parliament.
Another example of an existing relationship that will have to be worked out involves the Child Support Agency. The CSA is run as part of the structure of the Department of Health and Social Services in Northern Ireland and deals with Northern Ireland cases, but it also administers cases for a large part of eastern England. We shall have to work out how that will be administered in future, but there would seem to be a need for an agency arrangement.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister assure the House that a paper similar to that produced for Scotland and Wales will be produced before the conclusion of consideration of the Bill?

9 pm

Mr. Worthington: I cannot give that assurance, because I am sure that dozens of papers have been produced for the Bills dealing with Scotland and Wales. The hon. Gentleman has to be much more specific. If he will write to me with details of his request, I shall deal with it.
Concordats may well be developed in future between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament, but they will not, as has been suggested, be a means of central control. A concordat involves concord or agreement between two equal parties which decide of their own free will to do something that benefits both of them.
There will be no problem about divided loyalties in the civil service. The devolved administration will be served very professionally by the Northern Ireland civil service. There may well be concordats but, as the hon. Member for East Londonderry (Mr. Ross) recognised, clause 21

re-enacts section 11 of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, under which a number of agency arrangements have been agreed.
The clause 21 arrangements do not affect the ultimate responsibility of the principal Department or Minister for the discharge of the functions in question, and so do not involve any fundamental transfer of those functions to an alternative responsibility. They work at an operational level, not at a policy level. With a concordat, we would be dealing with policy and the development of different policies. We are simply saying that it makes sense in this context to have an operational agreement between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament. That is the sensible way to carry on.

Mr. William Ross: If a Northern Ireland Department is simply administering a UK function, to whom are the civil servants who are doing the work responsible? Are they responsible to their own Minister and, through the chain of command, to the Minister in this House, or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland? What is the chain of command and responsibility?

Mr. Worthington: I cannot answer hypothetical questions. The agreement would be different in each case. In each case, the chain of command and responsibility would need to be worked out between the Northern Ireland Assembly and the UK Parliament. When we ask a body that is part of the Northern Ireland Assembly to undertake what is essentially a UK responsibility, it seems sensible to promote good relationships between the two bodies. I therefore have to resist the move towards concordats, and I ask the hon. Member for Beaconsfield to withdraw the amendment.

Mr. William Ross: rose—

The Chairman: Order. The Minister has sat down.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his comments, but it does not sound as if the matter has been considered as fully as it might have been. That might be a reflection of the way in which Northern Ireland has been governed over the years. It is a happy development that we are discussing a Bill that will bring about a great change in that respect. Will the Minister examine the issue carefully and, if necessary, discuss it with the Secretary of State for Scotland who has great knowledge of it?

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman sits down, perhaps he will inquire of the Minister whether the arrangements will be informal, or made by order so that the House has a chance to look at them?

Mr. Grieve: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I will ask the Minister precisely that question.

Mr. Worthington: I am sorry that I did not spot earlier that the hon. Member for East Londonderry wanted to intervene. Obviously, when one is dealing with millions of pounds, as in each of those cases, formal administrative agreements would be drawn up. Clearly, it would not be on an informal basis.

Mr. Grieve: I am grateful for a little more clarity being cast. On the basis that, when I write to the Minister I shall


have a more detailed reply, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 21 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 22

STATUTORY COMMITTEES

Mr. Malcolm Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 11, line 2, at end insert
', except that the chairman shall not be a member of the same party as the Northern Ireland Minister being advised and assisted by the statutory committee.'.

The Chairman: With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 152, in clause 22, page 11, leave out lines 17 to 20 and insert—
'(5) Standing Orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated using the formula:
S/1+C+M
Where the figures given by this formula for two or more political parties are also equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly.'.

Mr. Moss: Clause 22 seeks to establish a number of statutory Committees to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister with the formulation of policy and to monitor the work of each Department. It seeks to put into legislation paragraphs 8 and 9 of strand 1 of the Belfast agreement.
Paragraph 8 of the agreement provides a definition of how the "Chairs and Deputy Chairs" of the Committees will be determined. The strange use of language in the agreement has been translated in the Bill to Chairman and Deputy Chairman. The Chairman and Deputy Chairman are to be
allocated proportionally by the d'Hondt system
which is outlined in subsection (4).
Paragraph 9 of the Belfast agreement details specific powers to those Committees. It states:
They will have the power to:
consider and advise on Departmental budgets and Annual Plans in the context of overall budget allocation;
approve relevant secondary legislation and take the Committee stage of relevant primary legislation;
call for persons and papers;
initiate enquiries and make reports;
consider and advise on matters brought to the Committee by its Minister."
However, the Bill does not detail those powers. It states simply in clause 22(2)(a) that Standing Orders shall make provision
for establishing committees of Members of the Assembly to advise and assist each Northern Ireland Minister in the formulation of policy with respect to matters within his responsibilities as a Minister".

The emphasis is on the formulation of policy and there is no mention of the role in paragraph 9 of the agreement to monitor the work of the Executive and scrutinise primary and secondary legislation. I hope that the Minister will clarify that point, because, on the face of it, those detailed functions of the Committees seem to have been overlooked.
The agreement goes to great lengths to achieve political and community balance in the Assembly. Clause 4 sets out clear rules with regard to weighted majorities under the definition of cross-community support. Why, then, does the Bill not seek to extend such checks and balances to the operation of statutory Committees? As I interpret clause 22(3), it is more than likely that, by operating the same d'Hondt system for choosing the Chairman and Deputy Chairman of the Committees, the nominated officers of the respective political parties could and may choose to select statutory Committees that parallel the ministerial Departments that they have already chosen. That could lead to exclusive control by one party of one or more of the Northern Ireland Departments.
Ministers and Chairmen of Committees could work hand in hand to dominate the work of that Department and the Committee, to the detriment of the best interests of fairness and balance in the working of the Assembly and of good government in Northern Ireland.
The amendment would prevent such exclusive control by ruling out the possibility of a Chairman of a statutory Committee being of the same party as the Minister heading the relevant Department. However, a Deputy Chairman of the same party as the Minister could still be selected under the d'Hondt system.
We believe that the amendment is compatible with the Belfast agreement and would reinforce the sentiments of fairness, balance and accountability. It would block off an obvious and potentially damaging loophole in the Bill.

Mr. Öpik: When I was just a schoolboy, way back in the 1980s, at the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, algebra was one of my favourite subjects. I remember the adage that was occasionally shared in my class that two plus two equals nought—if we rounded it down to the nearest 10. To some extent, that is the basis for my amendment. An injustice is built into what happens if there is a tie break in the nomination for Chairmen and Deputy Chairmen of the statutory Committees.
Clause 22 says:
Standing orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being equal to the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly.
Without going too far into the mathematics, that means that the formula that applies to the allocation of Ministers in the event of a tie break also applies to the allocation of Committee chairmanships.
The problem is that using the same tie break rule could result in an unbalanced outcome. For example, a party with 14 seats could get two Ministries and two chairmanships, while a party with seven seats got none of either. That does not conform to the spirit of the agreement, which is clear about proportionality. Paragraph 5(a) of strand 1 refers to the
allocation of Committee Chairs, Ministers and Committee membership in proportion to party strengths".


The system will not be completely proportional if the situation that I have described results.
My amendment would modify the formula, to right that wrong and give the small parties a chance of getting a chairmanship in the event of a tie break. The amendment would remove subsection (5) and insert:
Standing Orders shall provide that, where the figures given by the formula for two or more political parties are equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated using the formula:
S/(1+C+M)
Where the figures given by this formula for two or more political parties are also equal, each of those figures shall be recalculated with S being the number of first preference votes cast for the party at the last general election of members of the Assembly.
In essence, the amendment proposes that, in the event of a tie, the number of Ministries already allocated should be considered in decisions on allocating chairmanships. The proposed formula clearly follows the spirit of the Belfast agreement, which refers to proportionality for Ministries and chairmanships collectively, not just separately. The amendment is important because it creates a collective calculation.
Safeguards must be workable; I am glad to say that there would be nothing complex about applying the proposed formula following an election—even though it might be complex to explain in the Chamber. It ensures that all sections of the community can participate and work together, and that justice is seen to be done even for smaller parties that might otherwise be bereft of any meaningful positions of responsibility in the Assembly. There would be no downside for the larger partie because the proposed formula would kick in only when they already have the lion's share of ministerial positions—possibly all ministerial positions—and chairmanships.
One point that has not been mentioned in the debate is that the smaller parties actually received many votes. The other benefit of the amendment is that it acknowledges that minority parties have a right to play a significant role in the functioning of the Assembly. Once again, that is in the spirit of the agreement. Will the Minister give me an assurance that what I can only assume was an oversight will be seriously reconsidered over the summer recess, and that technical amendments to right a wrong facing smaller parties will be tabled at a later stage?
Finally, I suppose I must thank the mathematics department of the Royal Belfast Academical Institution for making the amendment possible by giving me a reasonable education.

Mr. McNamara: I am not sure whether hon. Members, particularly those on the Government Front Bench, would congratulate the Royal Belfast Academical Institution, although I am sure that the subject of the amendment will be of great interest to my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and will occupy his mind throughout the summer recess. I am sure that, when we return, he will send many pages of squared notepaper covered with work to their Lordships, most of whom had the benefit only of a classical education rather than that of the RBAI.
I should like to take up one point made by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). On the face of it, his proposition that the Chairman and the Minister being advised by the Committee should be of different parties appears very sensible, sound and secure.

Although, normally, I would go along with that, in this case, we would be providing one safeguard too many. The First Minister and the Deputy First Minister will have their parties and colleagues to consult on such matters. Perhaps the allocation of such posts is better left to them and their parties and to the other parties. We should be considering the ability of people in certain relationships.
I accept that there may be a danger of exclusivity and of certain areas being hived off as nationalist or Unionist, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested. Although those difficulties might emerge, we should leave matters of chairmanship to the good sense, good will and what we hope will be the spirit of the new Assembly.

Mr. Worthington: Following the suggestion of my hon. Friend the Minister of State that I reply to the debate on this group of amendments, I realised belatedly that it includes the d'Hondt principle. I looked through the amendments and rejoiced that nothing tested my algebra—until I came to the amendment tabled by the honourable anorak on the Liberal Democrat Benches, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik). [HON. MEMBERS: "That is unparliamentary language."] I do not think that it is, but that could be tested.

The Chairman: Order. It might be unparliamentary if there is a ruling by tomorrow morning.

Mr. Worthington: I had better withdraw it then, and apologise profusely.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out, there is a danger here. I understand why the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire has a desire to help small parties—it has been bred into him—but there can come a time when helping small parties overcomes the principle of proportionality. We must ensure that that principle, which is at the centre of the Bill, succeeds in the end.
The d'Hondt principle will certainly work for the Ministers, and perhaps 20 times again, for Chairs and Vice-Chairs. Therefore, many people will have positions of influence within the Assembly. I cannot promise the hon. Gentleman that we will embrace his amendment, but there is a link between it and amendment No. 14, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss). We are grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing the amendment to the Committee.

Mr. Öpik: May I emphasise, for the sake of the record, that our amendment exactly enshrines the principle of proportionality? That is why I tabled it.

Mr. Worthington: We wish to safeguard the principle of proportionality. That was the spirit behind amendment No. 14. It would be unfortunate if the Minister and the Chair of the Committee were from the same party. That situation is not specifically provided for in the agreement, but, in the spirit of the agreement, it would seem desirable that a Committee Chair should come from a different party, if the Committee is to carry out the scrutiny part of its role effectively.
However, there may be circumstances in which an overlap is unavoidable. We cannot accept the amendment as it stands, but we intend to introduce a similar


amendment at a later stage, while repeating that, no matter what the system may be, we cannot guarantee that there will always be perfect balance across, say, 10 Committees with Ministers, Chairs and Vice-Chairs. We recognise the idea behind the amendment, and we will consider it over the summer. I can give the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire that promise, and, in considering that principle, we will also take into account the principle raised by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Coming from the Methodist college, I shall support the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Mr. Öpik), who comes from the rival institute, in suggesting that the Minister's latter comments are most welcome. I refer to the 1975 constitutional convention, when we went further and the Committees had to be divided 50:50 between those who were on the executive and those who were not. The chairmanships, too, had to be 50:50. That contrasts with the lack of generosity in this place, where the Government must always have a majority on Standing or Select Committees. As the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) pointed out, the smallest two parties returned to the Assembly have very able Members who could perform a useful role in the Committees.

Mr. Worthington: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, and I hope that, in the light of my assurances, the amendment will be withdrawn.

Mr. Moss: We are grateful for the Minister's comments, and, on the basis of what he has said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 22 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

To report progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Committee report progress; to sit again tomorrow.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

ROAD TRAFFIC

That the draft Community Drivers' Hours and Recording Equipment (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 22nd June, be approved.

ANIMALS

That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 (Amendment) Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 25th June, be approved.

ROADS AND BRIDGES (SCOTLAND)

That the draft Security for Private Road Works (Scotland) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 30th June, be approved.

SOCIAL SECURITY

That the draft Pneumoconiosis etc. (Worker's Compensation) (Payment of Claims) Amendment Regulations 1998, which were laid before this House on 2nd July, be approved.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Question agreed to.

Orders of the Day — M62 (Junction 8)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dowd.]

Helen Jones: I am grateful for this opportunity to raise two matters that are of great concern to my constituents: traffic congestion and the need to create more jobs. Those matters crop up week after week in my surgeries and in letters and telephone calls from the people whom I represent. The missing junction 8 on the M62 could be part of the solution to both problems.
Warrington's traffic is a nightmare because the town grew very rapidly without the necessary roads infrastructure. Problems are particularly acute, first, for those who live in the Westbrook and Callands areas of my constituency, where residents often cannot even get out of or into their homes because of congestion along Cromwell avenue and around the Gemini area, where Warrington's big retail developments are. Secondly, those who live at Winwick and along the A49 in Warrington also suffer congestion because of the knock-on effect on junction 9 of the M62.
The new junction 8 is intended to relieve both problems, but it should also open access to the Omega site, which is one of the most important sites for economic development in the north-west. Not only is that vital for my constituents; it has strategic importance for the entire region.
My constituents have been very badly served by the way in which the project has been handled. When the M62 was built in 1972, it had two junctions: junction 7 at Rainhill near St. Helens and junction 9 at Winwick near Warrington. Provision was made for a junction 8 to be added later as the Warrington new town expanded.
We are still waiting 26 years later. The project entered the Government's trunk roads programme in 1994, and my constituents are becoming very impatient waiting for progress. I should make it clear that the reason for the delay has nothing to do with money, as the project is a section 278 scheme, which will be funded by the Commission for the New Towns—no Government money is involved.
We might reasonably have expected that the project's path would be fairly smooth, subject to the usual statutory inquiry procedures. However, that has not been the case. Over the past year in particular, some of us have felt that we were living in a "Through the Looking-Glass" world—the twists and turns of the plot were becoming very complicated.
I must give some of the details of that plot to explain why my constituents feel angry and frustrated waiting for the new junction. When the Government announced their roads review on 19 June last year, the sponsors of the scheme were told that it would be put on hold pending the outcome of that review. That caused consternation in Warrington—we could not understand why a section 278 scheme would be affected by the review. Telephone calls went back and forth between my office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and I must tell my hon. Friend the Minister that it was very difficult to get an answer from the Department about whether the scheme was included in the review.
Eventually, the Department confirmed that the scheme was not included. On 7 July last year, I received a letter from my noble Friend Baroness Hayman, in which, she said:
I have decided that, in line with other section 278 funded schemes, it should be allowed to proceed through the approval process in the normal way.
At last we thought we were getting somewhere, and matters proceeded. There were discussions between the various interested parties, and the Highways Agency told my local authority that it expected the scheme to proceed to public inquiry in June or July this year. However, there were yet more delays.
In January this year, I wrote to the Highways Agency and to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, only to be told that the timetable had slipped again. In a letter to me on 6 February, Baroness Hayman said clearly and unequivocally that
the scheme will go to Public Inquiry this autumn".
Sighs of relief all round. We were disappointed that the timetable had slipped, but at least we thought that we had a firm date.
Perhaps we should have known better. When we did not get a date for public inquiry, I put down a further question. On 12 May, I was told:
The scheme is being considered as part of the … Roads Review."—[Official Report, 12 May 1998; Vol. 312, c. 62.]
Letters went back and forth, and the Department corrected the answer on 14 July. The letter I received at that point, while confirming that the scheme was not in the roads review, did tell me that the public inquiry could not start now until early next year.
The reasons given for that were that the Government's new transport policy would include a new approach to the appraisal of such projects, and that the Highways Agency would need to show that the appraisal of the scheme had taken account of the new policy. I accept that that is the case—this scheme must be decided according to the new policy.
I do not accept that that is an argument for delay, because much of the work on the scheme has been done by the Highways Agency, and much of the information is there. In any case, if the scheme had proceeded according to plan, that inquiry would be up and running and would not have been affected at all. Instead, my constituents have been subjected to further delays, yet more traffic congestion and—most importantly—a denial of job opportunities.
As far as we in Warrington are concerned, this is an economic development issue and not just a roads issue. The Omega site, which the junction would open up, is a key strategic employment site for the whole region. It has 500 acres which, it is estimated, could supply 10,000 jobs—jobs which are badly needed, not simply in my constituency but in the area round about. Moreover, the aim of the site is to supply manufacturing jobs, which are needed badly in Warrington. The manufacturing sector has lost more than 8,000 jobs since 1981—that is 18 per cent. of the total. That is higher than the figure for Cheshire as a whole, and more than the figure for the north-west. It is more than the average for the whole country.
Without junction 8, Omega cannot be developed. The consequences of a failure to secure that development cannot be underestimated. Not only is the site one of the


nine identified as major inward investment sites for the north-west, it is generally considered by the market to be the best opportunity in the north-west of England for major economic development.
To understand why, it is necessary to know about the location of the site. It lies at the axis of the north-south and east-west transport spines, and has been identified in regional planning guidance as the primary development corridor for the region. It is also halfway between Manchester and Merseyside, and is well placed to take advantage of international transport links, whether by sea or by air. It is only two miles from the west coast main line, so it can be served by rail freight traffic as well. In fact, if one had to design a development site from scratch, it would be difficult to come up with a better one, or one that would fit more neatly with the Government's integrated transport strategy. Also, it is close to areas with objective 1 and 2 status, so the development of Omega would help to provide jobs and spin-off benefits for some of the most depressed parts of the region.
If my hon. Friend the Minister looks at the early-day motion, she will see that it is signed, not only by hon. Members representing the immediate vicinity, but by those representing Liverpool and Manchester as well because they recognise the benefits of the development. That is why about £9 million has already been invested in the site, in acquisition, site clearance, services and marketing. I cannot see the logic of promoting the development of the region and trying to reverse the decline in manufacturing industry, while at the same time delaying the development of a road that is vital to both.
I represent a constituency that, despite many of its economic successes, still contains some of the most deprived areas in north Cheshire—areas that have suffered second, and even third, generation unemployment. My constituents look to the Government to develop the employment opportunities that they so desperately need in such sites. We are still waiting, and while we wait the traffic chaos increases.
I mentioned the problems of people living in the Callands and Westbrook areas of my constituency. I can testify to those at first hand. I have turned back in that area at peak periods because the traffic simply does not move along Cromwell avenue. That situation has arisen because the Commission for the New Towns and the previous Secretary of State granted planning permission for major retail development without the necessary road infrastructure and without building that road junction. For instance, a huge Marks and Spencer store is in the area, and an Ikea store that attracts 2.2 million visitors a year.
Regional car traffic comes on to the roads in Warrington, which are simply not equipped to deal with it. Often, the result is almost gridlock-level traffic around Cromwell avenue, up the A49 and back to junction 9 on the M62. Indeed, at peak times one sees traffic queuing to get off at junction 9 to go into Warrington—stationary traffic on the motorway. That situation is beginning to concern the Cheshire police because of the potential for accidents. Furthermore, traffic in Winwick and down the A49 to Warrington is a constant problem, because all the traffic has to come off at one junction.
The Highways Agency has confirmed that pollution is increasing because of that traffic. On the A49 south of the motorway, standards for carbon monoxide, benzene and

oxides of nitrogen are already exceeded, and there is no chance of that improving while the current situation continues because traffic levels north and south of the motorway are expected to increase significantly if the new junction is not built. This is not a case of the often-quoted equation, "More roads equals more cars." In fact, the opposite is true. The lack of a planned highway infrastructure is a major contributor to the congestion that is plaguing local residents, hampering the development of local businesses and damaging the environment in the area.
It is also true to say that there have been objections to the proposed junction and the scheme around it, although they are few in number compared with the massive support that those have received in the constituency. I believe that most of the objections can be met. Indeed, a number of discussions have taken place among the various parties involved.
Noise fencing, mounding, tree and shrub planting and full cut-off flat glass lanterns can minimise the impact on the surrounding area. Detailed traffic calming measures are to be put in place in Burtonwood, to discourage traffic from going through residential areas. For both those who support the scheme and those who do not, there has to he an end to the uncertainty, and a decision has to be made.
I believe that the scheme is important and right for my constituency. It also fits the objectives of an integrated transport policy. It would allow us to create dedicated bus lanes, ease congestion and improve safety for people in residential areas, encouraging them to make more journeys on foot. I certainly would not walk in Callands and Westbrook with the current amount of traffic.
The scheme will be better for the environment, allowing us to improve air quality and reduce pollution along the A49. It would also allow priority improvements to be introduced for cyclists around junction 9, so we could perhaps encourage more people to cycle from Winwick, on one side of the junction, into the centre of Warrington. Those are the Government's objectives; they are right, and the scheme would help to meet them.
The scheme is one of those rare creatures, a green road, and people want it. It should be a flagship development, because it is a way of showing how the integrated transport policy can work. Instead, while we wait, the costs are escalating by possibly £1.5 million a year and my constituents are living with chaos.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept that the difficulties that we have experienced over the past year cannot go on. For the sake of the environment, of my constituents who need jobs and of a proper integrated transport policy, which we do not have in Warrington at the moment, the junction needs to go ahead. I hope that she will be able to tell me when the public inquiry will be. We need a firm date for it at last. I hope that, after 26 years, we will finally get some progress and the scheme will become a reality.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Glenda Jackson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) not only on securing this debate, but on her wealth of detail and the no small passion with which she has raised a matter that is obviously of very real concern to her and her constituents.


That concern is shared and, indeed, expressed with a similar passion to Ministers, by my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Ms Southworth). The issues are not only transport and traffic congestion, but job creation and regeneration in one of the areas of our country that so desperately need it.
The House will know that the Government are committed to developing a sustainable and integrated transport policy to tackle the serious problems of congestion and pollution that we face, and the publication on Monday of our White Paper "New Deal for Transport: Better for Everyone" has significantly advanced that process.
We changed policy and direction away from the previous Administration' s fragmented provision of infrastructure and services towards an integrated approach that will serve the country's needs for a strong economy, a sustainable environment and an inclusive society. Good communications are essential to delivering those aims, so we must reduce our excessive dependency on the car and lorry if we are not to be choked by increasing pollution and gridlocked by increasing congestion. Those problems plague my hon. Friend's constituents and those of my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South even now.
The scheme formally entered the roads programme in November 1995, although preliminary work had started earlier. It is being undertaken by the Highways Agency on behalf and at the expense, of the Commission for the New Towns, via an agreement under section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 between the agency and the commission, signed in March 1997.
The scheme provides for a new grade-separated junction on the M62 north of Warrington, between junction 7, which serves the A568 to Widnes, and junction 9, which serves A49 access into Warrington. The M62 would also be widened between the proposed junction 8 and existing junction 9, and there would be new access arrangements for the Burtonwood motorway service area. The scheme is designed to serve major retail and business sites, and to open up new areas for development in Warrington. It will relieve local roads, and junction 9, of traffic congestion related to existing major retail sites.
In February 1997, draft orders were published as required by the Highways Act 1980, and my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport announced to the House on 19 June 1997 that work on such developer-funded schemes would continue because the schemes either had been or would be scrutinised through the appropriate planning processes. The inquiry did not take place immediately, however, because the Commission for the New Towns asked the Highways Agency to consider reducing the scope, and hence the cost, of the works by deleting or deferring some or all of the motorway-widening element of the proposals.
Following detailed investigations, the Highways Agency concluded that, for safety reasons, widening should remain an essential component of the scheme from the outset, a conclusion that the commission accepted. A public inquiry was programmed to convene in the autumn, but we had developed our approach to road schemes within the context both of our roads review and of our work on an integrated transport policy. Ministers agreed that the scheme lies outside the scope of the roads review because it is 100 per cent. developer-funded, but it is not

exempt from our new appraisal approach. It remains a major road scheme, and we must be able to show that we have taken into account all aspects of its impact.
That impact will be assessed in line with the new approach to appraisal announced in the White Paper on integrated transport. The new approach operates within the framework of our five objectives for road schemes. My hon. Friend has referred to our objectives of integration, safety, accessibility, economy and environment because of their importance to the development and regeneration of her constituency and to the easing of the traffic situation. Although much of the approach uses established techniques and will build on work already done, a considerable amount of data gathered—for example, data on air quality, noise and landscape impacts—needs to be analysed again and re-presented.
The prospect of further delay to the programme has disappointed the Commission for the New Towns, as well as my hon. Friend's constituents and others in Warrington. The Omega site, situated in the south-west quadrant of the new junction on land that formerly housed the RAF Burtonwood airfield, represents one of the major regeneration opportunities in the north of England. Planning authorisation for employment use having already been secured, it has the potential to generate thousands of new jobs. The commission sees provision of ready access to the M62 as fundamental to its success, and the opening up of the Omega site remains the commission's primary objective in funding the works. A secondary objective is the release of remaining development land on the adjoining Gemini site, with improved motorway access via the proposed Gemini link.
The scheme will be the first large road scheme to go to public inquiry following publication of the integrated transport White Paper and the roads review report. We have taken the view that the Highways Agency should explain the scheme in terms of our new approach to appraisal, and that will require extra work. If the agency arrived at the public inquiry without applying the new approach, people would rightly criticise it for failing to do so, and that could lead to the inquiry being adjourned. We believe that the extra costs and delays involved in an adjournment would far outweigh those that will stem from the further preparation work that we are undertaking. We have concluded that the earliest possible start date for the public inquiry would be February next year.
Our new approach is designed to draw together the large amount of information collected as part of the appraisal of a transport problem and alternative solutions. It looks at the contribution of different forms of transport in developing alternative solutions and the potential effect of the new integrated transport approach, including the scope for and the effect of demand-management measures. It is our intention that that new approach, once finalised, will be applied to the appraisal of all transport projects, not only all road schemes.
As part of the appraisal, the economic impact of road investment is taken into account, largely through the estimated benefits of reduced journey times for commercial, business and other traffic. Techniques are being developed to assess the economic value of journey-time reliability and to identify those improvements which contribute most to reliability. In the interim, the current review has sought to identify such benefits in qualitative terms.
Each case must be assessed on its merits. In some cases, road access is essential to provide access to sites that could not otherwise be developed, and the contribution to regeneration is a complex issue. We agree with the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment that improvements are needed to the methods used in local and regional economic impact studies, so that the contribution of transport investment to regeneration can be better assessed.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for bringing these important issues to the attention of the House. She has been consistent in advocating, as has our hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, South, that the proposed scheme should proceed as quickly as possible. However, given the reasons I have already outlined, I ask my hon. Friend to remain patient over the coming—and, given the time that it has taken for the scheme to begin, comparatively few—remaining months.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.